i ♦ , A 


’ vs-..-.- 


V 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/whistler00sick_0 


The  Popular 
Library  of  Art 


The  Popular  Library  of  Art 

ALBRECHT  DURER  (37  Illustrations). 

By  Lina  Eckenstein. 

ROSSETTI  (53  Illustrations). 

By  Ford  Madox  Hueffer. 

REMBRANDT  (61  Illustrations). 

By  Auguste  Br6al. 

FRED.  WALKER  (32  Illustrations  and 
Photogravure). 

By  Clementina  Black. 

MILLET  (32  Illustrations). 

By  Romain  Rolland. 

THE  FRENCH  IMPRESSIONISTS 
(50  Illustrations). 

By  Camille  Mauclair. 

LEONARDO  DA  VINCI  (44  Illustrations). 

By  Dr  Georg  Gronau. 

GAINSBOROUGH  (55  Illustrations). 

By  Arthur  B.  Chamberlain. 

BOTTICELLI  (37  Illustrations). 

By  Julia  Cartwright  (Mrs  Ady). 

RAPHAEL  (50  Illustrations). 

By  Julia  Cartwright  (Mrs  Ady). 
VELAZQUEZ  (51  Illustrations). 

By  Auguste  Br£al. 

HOLBEIN  (50  Illustrations). 

By  Ford  Madox  Hueffer. 

ENGLISH  WATER  COLOUR  PAINTERS 
(42  Illustrations). 

By  A.  J.  Finberg. 

WATTEAU  (35  Illustrations). 

By  Camille  Mauclair. 

THE  PRE-RAPHAELITE  BROTHERHOOD 
(38  Illustrations). 

By  Ford  Madox  Hueffer. 

PERUGINO  (50  Illustrations). 

By  Edward  Hutton. 

CRUIKSHANK. 

By  W.  H.  Chesson. 

HOGARTH. 

By  Edward  Garnett. 


SYMPHONY  JN  WHITE,  No.  i. 

\ By  permission  of  Harris  Whittemorc , Esq .) 


WHISTLER 


BY 

BERNHARD  SICKERT 


LONDON:  DUCKWORTH  & CO 

NEW  YORK:  E.  P.  DUTTON  & CO. 


. 


TURNBULL  AND  SPEAKS,  PRINTERS,  EDINBURGH 


BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 

James  Abbott  Macneill  Whistler  was  such  an 
inveterate  mystifier  that  even  his  birth-place  and 
his  age  was  a matter  of  uncertainty  during  his 
life-time.  He  stated  at  the  Ruskin  trial  that 
he  was  born  at  St  Petersburg,  but  as  he  never 
disputed  his  American  parentage,  no  reason 
but  pure  love  of  mystification  can  account  for 
his  distortion  of  the  facts.  He  was  born  at 
Lowell,  Massachusetts,  on  July  11th,  1834. 

I quote  from  Way  and  Dennis.  His  father 
was  Major  George  Washington  Whistler,  a 
distinguished  engineer,  whose  second  wife, 
James’s  mother,  was  Anna  Mathilda  MacNeill, 
the  daughter  of  Dr  C.  D.  MacNeill,  of 
Wilmington,  North  Carolina.  At  the  age  of 
nine  he  was  taken  to  St  Petersburg,  where 
his  father  held  an  important  appointment  as 
engineer  of  the  St  Petersburg  and  Moscow 
Railway.  Major  Whistler  died  in  1849,  and 
soon  afterwards  Mrs  Whistler  and  her  sons 


VII 


BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 


returned  to  America,  where  in  1851  James 
entered  the  West  Point  Military  Academy. 
His  career  here  was  not  a success,  though  he 
secured  prizes  in  French  and  in  drawing, 
and  in  1854  he  took  his  discharge.  He  then 
obtained  a post  as  draughtsman  in  the  office  of 
the  Coast  and  Geodetic  Survey  at  Washington, 
in  which  capacity  he  made  his  first  etchings  on 
the  margin  of  a map.  No  doubt  it  was  these 
marginal  notes  which  shocked  the  authorities 
and  caused  his  discharge.  The  original  plate 
and  a proof  of  the  etching  were  exhibited  at 
the  Whistler  Memorial  Exhibition,  and  it  was 
amusing  to  compare  the  official  rigidity  of  the 
Coast  Survey  draughtsman  with  the  joyous 
recklessness  of  the  artist  when  he  let  himself 
loose.  Facts  and  dates  were  always  obnoxious 
to  Whistler,  and  therefore  it  is  in  a spirit  of 
piety  that  I hasten  over  this  ground.  In  1855 
he  definitely  devoted  himself  to  art,  and  after 
a short  visit  to  England  settled  in  Paris  in 
1855,  entering  the  studio  of  Gleyre.  Here  he 
was  associated  with  Degas,  Bracquemond, 
Alphonse  Legros  and  Fantin-Latour,  and 
among  his  fellow  students  were  Sir  C.  J. 
Poynter  and  Mr  George  Du  Maurier.  He 


BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 


was  also  for  a time  in  the  studio  of  Lecoq  de 
Bois  Baudran,  having  for  fellow  pupils  Fantin, 
Manet,  Degas,  Claude  Monet  and  Otto 
Scholderer.  Baudran  taught  his  pupils  to  work 
from  memory,  a training  which  Whistler  found 
invaluable  in  his  night  pieces.  While  in  Paris 
he  executed  the  “ Little  French  Set  ” of 
etchings,  which  were  published  in  1858.  In 
1 859  he  was  in  London,  where  he  lived  with 
bis  brother-in-law,  Sir  Seymour  Haden,  in 
Sloane  Street.  He  afterwards  shared  a studio 
for  some  time  with  Du  Maurier  in  Newman 
Street,  Oxford  Street,  and  then,  after  spending 
some  months  at  Wapping,  he  settled  in  Lindsay 
Row,  Chelsea,  where  he  returned  after  a visit 
to  Valparaiso  in  1865-6.  When  the  Grosvenor 
Gallery  was  started  in  1877  with  Sir  Coutts 
Lindsay  as  Director,  Whistler  contributed  six 
pictures  which  called  forth  the  famous  attack 
of  Ruskin  in  “ Fors  Clavigera  ” of  July  2,  1877. 
Whistler  thereupon  sued  Ruskin  for  libel, 
claiming  £1000.  The  case  was  tried  before 
Baron  Huddleston  and  a special  Jury  on 
November  25th  and  26th,  1878,  and  resulted 
in  a verdict  for  the  plaintiff  with  one  farthing 
damages. 


IX 


BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 


Early  in  1879  he  left  London  and  went  to 
Venice,  returning  towards  the  end  of  1880 
and  again  settling  in  Chelsea.  In  1884  he 
was  elected  a member  of  the  Royal  Society 
of  British  Artists,  of  which  two  years  later  he 
was  elected  President  in  June  1886,  but  only 
came  into  office  six  months  afterwards,  that 
is,  in  January  1887. 

He  was  compelled  to  resign  in  1888,  and 
was  succeeded  by  Mr  (later.  Sir)  Wyke  Bayliss. 
In  the  same  year  was  published  his  pamphlet 
“Ten  o’Clock,”  which  he  had  delivered  to 
audiences  in  London,  Oxford  and  Cambridge, 
in  1885,  and  in  1890  under  the  title  of  “The 
Gentle  Art  of  Making  Enemies,”  a collection 
of  letters  and  various  controversial  matter, 
including  the  Ruskin  trial,  and  the  “ Art  v. 
Art  Critics  ” pamphlet. 

In  1892  he  took  a house  in  Paris  in  the 
Rue  du  Bac,  but  he  cannot  be  said  to  have 
settled  there,  as  he  returned  several  times 
to  London. 

He  had  married  late  in  life  the  widow  of 
E.  W.  Godwin,  a celebrated  architect,  and 
her  death  in  1896  was  a great  blow  to  him. 
His  restlessness  grew  with  his  loneliness,  but 


x 


BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE 


work  was  always  his  antidote  to  melancholy. 
In  1898  he  was  elected  first  President  of 
the  “ International  Society  of  Sculptors, 
Painters,  and  Gravers,”  a position  which  he 
held  until  his  death,  which  took  place  on 
July  17th,  1903. 

The  list  of  honours  conferred  on  him  by 
other  nations  is  considerable. 

In  France  he  was  an  officer  of  the  Legion  of 
Honour ; in  Italy  hon.  member  of  the  Royal 
Academy  of  St  Luke,  and  Commander  of  the 
Order  of  the  Crown  of  Italy  ; in  Germany  hon. 
member  of  the  Royal  Academy  of  Bavaria, 
Chevalier  of  the  Order  of  St  Michael,  and  hon. 
member  of  the  Royal  Academy  of  Dresden.  In 
America,  his  birthplace,  and  in  England,  where 
he  had  lived  and  wrought  for  the  greater  part 
of  his  life,  he  received  no  official  recognition 
whatever. 


xi 


i 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Biographical  Note  .....  vii 

List  of  Illustrations  .....  xv 

I 

Whistler  as  an  Artist  ....  1 

II 

Portraits  .......  19 

III 

Nocturnes  .......  31 

IV 

Whistler’s  Later  Works  ....  34 

V 

The  Whistler  Memorial  Exhibition  . . 41 

xiii 


CONTENTS 

VI 

Whistler’s  Personality 

PAGE 

. 57 

Whistler  as 

VII 

a Writer 

. 71 

Technique 

VIIJ 

. 102 

Whistler  as 

IX 

an  Etcher 

. 114 

Pastels  and 

X 

Water-Colours 

. 130 

Decoration 

XI 

. 135 

Catalogue  oi 

XII 

1 Oil  Pictures 

. 139 

xiv 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 

W.  = F.  Wedmore’s  Catalogue  of  Etchings. 

S.  = Supplementary  Catalogue. 

PAGE 


Symphony  in  W hite,  No.  1 . (By  permission 


of  Harris  Whittemore,  Esq.)  . 

Frontispiece 

Portrait  of  Whistler’s  Mother 

3 

Carlyle  ..... 

7 

Sarasate  ..... 

21 

Nocturne,  Blue  and  Gold.  (National 

Gallery  of  British  Art)  ...  27 

Dieppe  Beach.  (By  permission  of  Douglas 

Freshfield,  Esq.)  .....  37 

Etching — The  Unsafe  Tenement.  (W.  7)  43 

Etching — La  Mere  Gerard.  ( W.  9)  . 47 

Etching — La  Marchande  de  Moutarde. 

(W.  16) 

Etching — Tyzac,  Whiteley  & Co.  ( W.  39) 
Etching — Blag  Lion  Wharf.  ( W.  40) 

Dry  Point — The  Miser.  (W.  65) 


xv 


59 

63 

67 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 


PAGE 


Etching — Amsterdam  from  the  Tolhuis 

( W.  82)  


73 


Etching — Whistler  with  the  White  Lock 


(New  York.)  (W.  142) 

79 

Etching — The  Palaces.  ( W.  153) 

83 

Etching — The  Doorway.  {W.  154) 

89 

Etching — The  Riva  {W.  157)  . 

95 

Etching — Upright  Venice.  (W.  172) 

99 

Etching — Nocturne,  Dance  House. 
268) 

(W. 

105 

Etching — The  Embroidered  Curtain. 
356) 

( W. 

109 

Etching — Jo’s  Bent  Head.  (S.  370)  . 

115 

Lithograph — Mother  and  Child 

121 

Lithograph — Miss  Williams 

125 

The  Little  Pool  . 

131 

Lithograph — The  Horoscope 

137 

Harmony  in  Gold  and  Brown  — Pastel. 
{By  permission  of  Bickford  Waller,  Esq.) 

143 

xvi 


I 


Whistler  as  an  Artist 

The  isolation  of  Whistler  as  an  artist  is  more 
marked  than  that  of  any  of  his  contemporaries. 

Whilst  it  is  increasingly  difficult  to  assign 
to  any  school  the  art  of  to-day  with  its  cosmo- 
politan culture,  there  is  yet  some  truth  and 
meaning  in  classing  Millais  as  an  English  Pre- 
Raphaelite,  Menzel  as  a German  Realist, 
Monet  as  a French  Impressionist.  But  it  is 
idle  to  connect  Whistler’s  art  with  any  nation- 
ality, for  the  French  influence  is  no  more 
marked  than  the  Spanish  or  the  Japanese, 
and  it  seems  to  me  almost  as  idle  to  term 
Whistler  an  Impressionist. 

Fifty  years  ago  Ruskin  quoted  Turner’s 
remark,  “ Do  you  not  know  that  you  ought 
to  paint  your  impressions?” 

In  Turner’s  case  and  in  Whistler’s  the  im- 
pression was  a mental  process. 

?va  I 


WHISTLER 


Whether  the  record  was  made  straight  from 
nature  or  in  the  seclusion  of  the  studio  is 
immaterial ; much  of  vol.  4 of  u Modern 
Painters  ” consists  of  a clear  exposition  of 
the  principle. 

Here  we  find  Turner’s  version  of  the  “ Pass 
of  Faido  ” contrasted  with  Ruskin’s  transcript 
of  it  as  it  actually  appeared  from  one  spot. 

But  Turner  wished  to  render  the  impression 
he  had  received  of  the  place  after  he  had  ap- 
proached it  “ through  one  of  the  narrowest 
and  most  sublime  ravines  of  the  Alps/’  and 
he  therefore  suppressed,  or  collated,  or  altered 
a quantity  of  different  aspects. 

Now  I do  not  claim  that  Whistler  in  his 
nocturnes  made  any  conscious  alterations  in 
the  construction  of  the  actual  scene  which  had 
inspired  him,  but  I do  claim  that  the  process 
was  essentially  the  same  as  Turner’s,  and  that 
he  was  only  careful  to  be  true  to  a mental 
impression. 

The  modern  impressionist,  if  we  take  Monet 
as  the  most  typical  exponent,  proceeds  by  a 
radically  different  method.  His  aim  is  to 
render  with  the  utmost  precision  the  exact 
tone  and  colour,  the  value,  in  fact,  of  each 


2 


HU 


. 


WHISTLER 


portion  of  the  aspect  at  a given  moment,  on  a 
given  scale  to  be  seen  at  a given  distance. 
He  knows  that  no  calculation,  classification,  or 
effort  of  memory  can  follow  precisely  the 
infinite  variety  of  these  nuances  of  value. 
Not  only  is  the  aspect  instantaneous,  but 
strictly  speaking  it  is  unique  and  will  never 
recur. 

He  will  therefore  work  as  far  as  possible  on 
the  spot,  and  it  is  at  his  peril  that  he  relies  on 
his  memory,  or  alters  anything,  or  continues 
for  any  long  period,  or  recurs  to  the  subject 
another  day.  As  a painter  is  not  a perfect 
machine  he  inevitably  is  driven  to  all  or  some 
of  these  expedients,  but  they  are  on  principle 
methods  of  “ pis  aller.” 

The  impression  is  narrowed  down  as  far  as 
possible  to  a purely  visual  point.  I think 
we  may  fairly  apply  this  description  to  such  a 
picture  as  Monet’s  Haystacks.  But  it  is 
obvious  that  it  would  not  apply  to  any  picture 
by  Whistler,  even  to  one  that  appears  most 
faithful  to  the  aspect  of  the  moment,  let  us 
say  the  nocturne  in  blue  and  gold,  Old 
Battersea  Bridge,  now  in  the  Tate  Museum. 
The  considerations  that  prevent  a picture  by 

5 


WHISTLER 


Whistler  from  being  an  absolute  transcript 
from  Nature  are  firsts  the  deliberate  choice  of 
the  artist,  and  second,  the  fallibility  and 
limitations  of  his  memorising  powers. 

On  the  other  hand  the  limitations  that 
prevent  Monet’s  Haystacks  from  being  exactly 
like  “ haystacks”  are  purely  material,  the 
limitation  of  time,  the  unique  character  of  the 
moment,  and  the  limitations  of  oil  paint. 
Whistler  selects,  whereas  Monet  is  prevented 
or  excluded.  Whistler  serenely  continues  to 
draw  on  his  stores,  whereas  Nature  after  a 
short  time  shuts  the  door  in  Monet’s  face. 
If  this  be  true  it  is  not  sufficient  to  say  that 
Whistler  is  the  greater  artist,  we  must  say 
that  Monet  is  not  an  artist  at  all.  Science  is 
the  goddess  that  claims  him  and  not  art. 

Some  one  has  said  that  all  great  men  are 
always  of  one  age  ; that  they  know  not  youth 
or  age.  Whistler  must  have  early  seemed 
mature,  and  he  certainly  seemed  boyish,  nay 
childlike,  when  a middle-aged  man. 

But  just  as  Whistler  was  of  no  nationality 
and  of  no  period,  so  he  was  of  no  age.  Or 
rather  he  was  a Whistlerian  in  nationality, 
period  and  age.  The  first  picture  he  exhibited, 
6 


CARLYLE 


WHISTLER 


At  the  Piano,  in  I860,  was  acknowledged  at  the 
time  as  a wonderful  performance  and  has  taken 
its  place  since  as  a masterpiece. 

To  my  mind  it  is  not  only  this,  but  is  unique 
as  the  work  of  a man  of  twenty-four.  No 
doubt  many  great  painters,  perhaps  the 
majority,  have  shown  great  powers  from  the 
first.  In  our  own  times  alone  we  have  merely 
to  consider  those  “gifted  boys”  the  Pre- 
Raphaelites,  or  the  early  work  of  Watts,  to  be 
sure  of  this. 

But  there  is  usually  something  jejune  or 
raw  about  a young  painter’s  work,  and  the 
powers  have  not  come  to  full  maturity.  At  the 
Piano  is  a work,  not  of  promise,  but  of  full  and 
perfect  achievement.  Many  indeed  who 
would  dispute  Whistler’s  eminence  in  his 
later  work  admit  his  mastery  in  the  earlier 
period. 

There  is  a fullness  and  richness  of  quality  in 
At  the  Piano,  The  Last  of  Old  Westminster,  The 
Blue  Wave,  Biarritz,  the  Music-Boom,  which  he 
discarded  later. 

I believe  that  in  all  these  works  the  canvas 
was  full-primed  and  light  in  colour,  and  there 
was  very  little  repainting.  Hence  the  glow  of 

9 


WHISTLER 


colour  which  has  only  intensified  with  time. 
Sometimes,  as  in  the  Last  of  Old  Westminster, 
and  the  Music-Room,  portions  have  become 
badly  cracked,  probably  from  repainting.  It 
is  possible  that  this  may  have  induced  him  to 
alter  his  method,  but  the  chief  consideration  I 
think  was  his  attempt  to  emulate  some  of  the 
qualities  of  Japanese  painting  for  which  he 
had  such  a great  admiration.  These  being 
painted  in  gouache  on  paper  or  silk  necessarily 
involved  a thinner  and  more  flowing  technique. 

The  transition  is  visible  in  the  Symphony  in 
White,  No.  2,  or  the  Little  White  Girl,  as  it  was 
originally  entitled  in  the  Royal  Academy 
catalogue  of  I860,  and  in  the  Old  Battersea 
Bridge  of  the  same  year,  belonging  to  Mr 
Edmund  Davis,  but  it  was  more  marked  in  the 
Symphony  in  White,  No.  3,  in  the  same  collection. 

If  Whistler  had  never  touched  a copper 
plate  or  a pastel  or  a water  colour,  these  two 
pictures  of  1865  should  have  marked  him  out 
as  the  greatest  painter  of  our  time,  and  one 
that  has  a place  with  the  greatest  of  all 
times,  with  Rembrandt  and  Reynolds  and 
Gainsborough. 

It  is  true  that  the  Little  White  Girl  met 

10 


WHISTLER 


with  approval,  nay,  with  enthusiasm,  in  certain 
quarters ; that  it  inspired  Algernon  Charles 
Swinburne  to  write  some  charming  verses ; 
that  it  was  and  is  still  the  most  popular  of 
Whistler’s  pictures.  Yet  those  who  agree 
with  me  that  it  is  one  of  the  great  pictures  of 
the  world  must  also  even  now  be  unsatisfied 
with  the  appreciation  it  has  received.  Critical 
coolness  is  very  well  in  its  place,  but  do  we 
measure  with  our  two-foot  rule  the  Mrs  Nesbitt 
as  Circe,  of  Sir  Joshua,  or  the  Mrs  Sheridan  and 
Mrs  Ticket,  of  Gainsborough,  or  the  Mrs 
Carwardine  and  Child,  of  Romney  ? I select 
these  for  comparison  because  they  are  not  in 
a sense  academically  perfect.  But  before 
such  beauty  as  this  our  attitude  is  rightly  one 
of  awe  and  reverence,  and  we  throw  aside 
prejudices  and  formulae.  The  joy  of  sheer 
beauty  holds  us  to  the  exclusion  of  any  other 
emotion.  There  is  something  of  the  mystical, 
yearning,  aching  sense  of  beauty  that  we  find 
in  Rossetti.  But  in  Rossetti,  inadequately 
equipped  as  a painter,  the  feeling  is  exagger- 
ated, and  is  self-conscious  and  literary ; he  is 
entirely  wanting  in  dignity  and  reticence. 
He  drew  on  the  stores  of  his  own  ideals,  until 


II 


WHISTLER 


sense.,  proportion,  and  the  clean  fresh  loveliness 
of  Nature  were  destroyed.  English  critics 
have  regretted  that  the  girl  is  not  more 
beautiful.  True,  she  has  a face  and  not  a 
Greek  mask.  But  she  is  as  beautiful  as  a 
young  girl  need  be.  She  is  a person,  and 
though  she  may  approach  to  a type,  she  is  not 
a type.  The  model  was  an  Irish  girl  with 
auburn  hair,  whom  we  find  again  in  the  Sy  in- 
phony in  White,  No.  1,  and  in  several  etchings. 

It  is  interesting  to  compare  with  Whistler’s 
version,  Courbet’s  picture  of  L’  lrlandaise, 
painted  from  the  same  model,  “Jo.”  Every 
portion  of  Whistler’s  picture  is  flawless.  Look 
at  the  lovely  arm  and  hand  resting  on  the 
mantelpiece.  How  lightly  it  rests,  and  yet  it  is 
a woman’s  arm,  round  and  solid  under  the  soft 
muslin.  Look  at  the  azaleas  in  the  foreground. 
Do  other  blossoms  ever  seem  to  be  growing  by 
comparison  ? Was  there  ever  such  lightness 
of  touch  combined  with  such  sureness  ? It  is 
as  if  they  had  been  thought  on  to  the  canvas. 
Like  all  perfect  art,  like  the  dancing  of 
Adeline  Genee  or  the  bowing  of  Isaye,  the 
most  striking  thing  about  it  as  a performance 
is  its  ease. 


2 


WHISTLER 


Painters  are  unjustly  treated  in  this  respect 
compared  with  other  artists.  Do  we  make 
an  inquisition  into  Isaye’s  private  matters, 
and  require  him  to  tabulate  the  number  of 
hours  he  has  practised  solfeggi,  or  demand  an 
affidavit  of  Mr  Swinburne  for  his  “ Sapphics  ” ? 
Why  could  we  not  then  accept  the  Little 
White  Girl,  say  grace,  and  ask  for  more  ? 

The  other  two  Symphonies  in  white,  though 
abounding  in  beautiful  qualities,  are  not  so 
entirely  flawless.  The  famous  white  girl  or 
Symphony  in  White,  No.  1,  now  belonging  to  M. 
Harris  Whittemore,  had  never  been  exhibited 
in  England  at  all,  nor  I believe  in  France,  since 
it  had  excited  attention  in  1 863  at  the  Salon 
des  Refuses  until  the  Whistler  Memorial 
Exhibition  of  1905. 

The  same  girl,  Jo,  stands  facing  the  spectator, 
her  hands  dropped  with  utter  simplicity  and 
dignity.  In  her  right  she  loosely  holds  a 
jasmine  blossom,  and  the  only  positive  colour 
is  a little  blue  at  her  feet.  Here  it  must  be 
admitted  that  the  listlessness  that  adds  such 
charm  to  the  Little  White  Girl  just  borders 
on  lifelessness.  The  girl  has  no  expression  at 
all ; she  just  stares  with  her  great  eyes  and 

13 


WHISTLER 


looks  if  anything  merely  bored.  The  painting, 
too,  is  not  quite  happy.  The  lines  are  stiffly 
and  sharply  drawn,  and  there  is  a certain 
harshness  which  is  rare,  almost  unique,  in 
Whistler’s  painting.  It  has  been  suggested 
that  the  hard  brilliant  climate  of  Baltimore, 
where  it  has  been  for  forty  years,  is  responsible 
for  the  lack  of  that  mellowness  that  our  softer 
climate  imparts  to  pictures. 

Beautiful  as  the  Symphony  in  White,  No.  3 is 
in  design  and  colour,  that  also  is  not  quite  on 
the  level  of  the  second  Symphony.  The  seated 
figure  on  the  right  is  timidly  drawn,  especially 
the  face  and  hands,  and  throughout  the  thin- 
ness of  the  pigment  is  just  pushed  a little  too 
far,  and  verges  on  poverty. 

But  the  reclining  girl,  Jo,  leaning  her  head 
on  her  hand  is  one  of  the  most  exquisitely 
graceful  figures  in  its  sensuous  ease  that  a 
poet  painter  could  have  conceived. 

It  is  Greek,  Pheidian,  in  its  majestic  grace, 
but  not  sham  Greek.  There  is  nothing 
archaistic  or  resuscitative  about  it.  The 
azaleas,  rising  from  the  frame  as  before,  are 
perfect  examples  of  tender  manipulation. 

In  these  Symphonies  the  influence  of  the 

H 


WHISTLER 


Japanese  painters,  Hokusai,  Hiroshige  and 
Utamaro  is  distinctly  perceptible,  in  the 
simplification  of  tones,  the  reticence  of  the 
modelling,  and  the  introduction  of  sprays  of 
blossoms  as  noticed  above. 

At  a time  when  Japanese  art  was  almost 
unknown,  and  collectors  were  only  beginning 
to  realise  the  store  of  beautiful  designs 
hitherto  untouched,  Whistler  was  an  ardent 
student,  and  adapted  for  his  own  purposes 
some  of  the  characteristics  of  Japanese  art 
with  marvellous  skill  and  taste. 

He  did  not  however  positively  assert  his 
predilections  for  Eastern  art  until  1864,  when 
he  exhibited  Die  lange  Leizen.  As  this  title 
must  puzzle  those  who  are  not  familiar  with 
ceramics  it  should  be  explained  that  the 
phrase  is  Dutch,  and  was  by  them  applied  to  a 
particular  kind  of  Chinese  pottery  which  was 
in  great  favour  among  collectors  in  Holland. 
The  phrase  translated  into  English  means 
“the  long  Elizas,”  alluding  to  the  elongated 
figures  of  Chinese  ladies  which  were  the  chief 
decoration.  The  six  marks  were  valued  as 
giving  the  year  and  dynasty  of  the  pottery. 
In  this  picture  as  indeed  in  his  Japanese 

15 


WHISTLER 


subjects,  Whistler  made  no  attempt  at 
erudition.  The  girl  is  in  a long  gown  which 
may  be  accepted  as  Chinese,  and  her  hair  is 
done  in  a fashion  which  is  merely  not  European, 
but  rather  Japanese  than  Chinese.  Also  she 
is  obviously  not  Chinese  in  nationality.  In 
style  the  picture  belongs  to  the  early  period 
of  full  “fat”  painting,  each  portion  appearing 
to  be  finished  un  premier  coup.  In  this,  as  in 
the  Golden  Screen  of  the  following  year,  the 
painting  of  the  robe  is  an  astounding  piece  of 
virtuosity. 

The  main  colour  has  evidently  been  laid  in 
in  solid  brilliant  masses,  and  on  this  while  it 
was  still  wet  the  pattern  has  been  placed  with 
unerring  precision.  We  can  see  that  some  of 
the  brushes  were  round,  some  square,  and  some 
pointed,  but  whilst  the  brush  work  is  thus 
frank  and  obvious,  it  is  never  merely  swaggering 
dexterity ; each  touch  is  interpretative,  and 
expresses  a particular  character  of  the  patterq. 
Some  of  the  round  touches  are  pulled  off  as  it 
were,  leaving  an  edge  of  light  colour,  which 
exactly  express  the  embroidered  flowers 
with  light  edges  and  dark  centres.  In  any 
other  hands  such  treatment  would  lead  to 
1 6 


WHISTLER 


brutality,  daubing,  and  even  to  sheer  loss  of 
construction. 

But  in  the  Golden  Screen  the  form  of  the 
whole  figure  is  expressed  as  it  would  be  in 
nature,  merely  by  the  planes  of  each  separate 
patch  of  pattern  with  its  foreshortening, 
appearance  and  disappearance.  It  is  pleasant 
to  recall  that  the  late  F.  G.  Stephens,  for  many 
years  art  critic  of  the  Athenaeum,  not  by  any 
means  a whole-hearted  admirer  of  Whistler, 
spoke  of  the  “almost  mystical  delicacy  of  its 
tone,”  “ the  admirable  chiaroscuro ,”  and  the 
“ineffable  beauty”  of  the  colour. 

The  Balcony,  another  piece  of  Japonaiserie, 
is  even  more  frankly  fantastic,  for  the  girls 
who  are  leaning  over  it  are  Japanese  in  costume, 
but  the  scene  on  which  they  are  looking  is  the 
grey  Thames  at  Chelsea  with  its  wharves  and 
wharvehouses. 

La  Princesse  des  pays  de  la  porcelaine, 
whilst  containing  wonderful  passages  of  virtu- 
osity, as  in  the  rug  and  the  flowing  “ kimono,” 
is,  I think,  the  least  happy  of  his  Japanese 
inspirations.  The  head  of  the  beautiful  Miss 
Spartali,  who  stood  for  the  picture,  appears  in 
its  richness  of  tone  to  overweight  the  rest  of  the 
wb  I 7 


WHISTLER 


picture  a little,  and  the  left  arm  and  hand  are 
ungainly  in  attitude,  and  not  quite  convincing 
in  drawing.  A magnificent  sketch  for  this 
picture  was  formerly  in  the  possession  of 
Professor  Fred  Brown. 


II 

Portraits 

Whistler’s  position  as  a portrait  painter  is 
peculiar.  Here,  as  always,  his  paramount  pre- 
occupation was  with  the  picture,  the  arrange- 
ment of  tones  and  colours  in  a certain  pattern. 

The  great  portrait  painters,  Velasquez, 
Vandyck,  Reynolds,  Gainsborough,  achieved 
splendid  te  arrangements  ” without  thereby  im- 
molating the  person  depicted,  as  Whistler  too 
often  did.  The  portrait  by  Gainsborough  of 
Miss  Adney  was  an  arrangement  in  brown  and 
pink  as  perfect  as  anything  from  Whistler’s 
brush.  But  there  is  a vivacity,  a penetration  of 
glance  in  this  as  in  all  Gainsborough’s  portraits 
that  was  quite  beyond  Whistler. 

The  person  and  the  picture  are  not  necessarily 
antagonistic,  as  he  seemed  to  assume. 

In  the  “ Red  Rag”  of  the  “ Gentle  Art” 
Whistler  defends  his  position  thus  : — 

19 


WHISTLER 


“ Take  the  picture  of  my  mother,  exhibited 
at  the  Royal  Academy  as  an  f Arrangement  in 
Grey  and  Black.’  Now  that  is  what  it  is. 
To  me  it  is  interesting  as  a portrait  of  my 
mother;  but  what  can  or  ought  the  public  to 
care  about  the  identity  of  the  portrait?” 
This  is  quite  unsound  philosophy.  The  public 
does  and  should  care  about  the  identity  of  the 
portrait,  not  in  the  sense  of  gathering  any 
specific  knowledge,  or  starting  with  a bias  as 
to  what  a famous  person  ought  to  look  like, 
but  in  the  sense  of  a strong  impression  of 
individuality,  character,  personality. 

We  know  little  and  care  less  who  were  the 
persons  who  sat  to  Franz  Hals,  but  we  have  a 
very  vivid  impression  of  each  individual,  so 
that  we  should  recognise  him  if  we  passed  him 
in  the  street. 

Whistler  did  well  to  select  the  portrait  x)f 
his  mother  for  his  illustration,  since  it  is  the 
only  one  that  has  this  compelling  force  of 
individuality,  except  perhaps  the  Carlyle,  whose 
weary  hopeless  face  looks  out  with  a sad 
intensity.  But  take  the  portrait  of  Irving  as 
Philip  II.  To  have  failed  in  suggesting  the 
character  of  that  face,  one  of  the  most  extra- 


20 


SARASATE 


WHISTLER 


ordinary  that  ever  was  set  on  a man’s  shoulders, 
with  its  ardent  glance  of  passion  and  intelli- 
gence, is  to  have  failed  in  the  most  vital  point. 
Of  course  this  is  not  even  to  be  counted  among 
Whistler’s  best  portraits.  Irving’s  legs  were 
not  exactly  his  strong  point,  but  even  his  legs 
had  not  that  fin-like  absence  of  construction. 
The  hand,  too,  is  suggestive  of  his  particular 
trick  of  fidgeting  with  a trinket,  but  is  a mere 
suggestion,  and  has  none  of  the  fine  and 
nervous  expression  of  that  wonderful  hand. 
I have  not  seen  any  mention  of  the  fact,  that 
the  portrait  in  the  final  stage,  as  it  was  seen 
at  the  New  Gallery,  has  been  considerably 
altered  since  it  was  first  exhibited,  and  as  it 
appears  reproduced  in  M.  Duret’s  book. 

In  the  earlier  version  the  whole  of  the  right 
arm  is  free,  and  the  cloak  falls  back  from  the 
shoulder.  In  the  final  stage,  the  cloak  falls 
forward,  hiding  all  but  the  hand  and  wrist.  I 
do  not  think  it  is  an  improvement,  at  least  in 
the  very  careless  and  slovenly  way  in  which  it 
is  painted.  The  legs,  too,  have  been  consider- 
ably altered,  and  here  I think  for  the  better. 
The  left  foot  is  better  drawn,  but  not  quite 
successfully,  even  now. 

23 


WHISTLER 


If  most  of  these  portraits  are  not  quite  satis- 
factory as  portraits,  and  a few  may  almost  be 
considered  failures  even  as  pictures,  it  was  not 
from  lack  of  thought  or  poverty  of  ideal. 
Whistler’s  intense  ideal,  to  make  the  picture 
as  it  were  blush  into  life,  to  grow  as  sweetly 
and  inevitably  as  a flower  grows,  necessitated 
an  effort  of  sustained  attention  which  must 
have  been  very  trying  to  all  concerned.  The 
weary  hours  that  poor  little  Miss  Alexander 
stood  while  the  master  grimly  battled  with  his 
canvas,  with  the  determination  to  attain 
perfect  and  final  expression  in  every  part  of 
the  picture  ! 

Whistler  was  the  Flaubert  of  painters,  and 
just  as  no  one  but  a writer  can  entirely 
appreciate  the  mot  juste  which  was  Flaubert’s 
eternal  problem,  so  none  but  a painter  can 
understand  Whistler’s  exasperated  striving 
after  the  perfect  expression.  The  layman 
appreciates  and  admires  the  gifts  of  eye  and 
hand  necessary  to  produce  a good  likeness  of 
the  sitter ; he  is  even  appreciative  of  the  power 
of  idealisation,  in  the  sense  of  falsifying  the 
true  aspect ; but  he  is  usually  quite  incapable 
of  appreciating  the  mental  powers  which  can 

24 


WHISTLER 


make  a picture  at  once  intensely  real  and 
intensely  ideal.  Paint  can  be  made  into 
something  pleasant  in  itself  to  look  upon, 
although  it  very  seldom  is,  in  our  own  times. 
But  to  make  it  at  once  beautiful  in  itself,  and 
an  expression  of  something  beautiful  in  nature, 
to  make  it  truly  eloquent  of  the  painter’s  own 
vision,  that  is  the  final  test. 

A human  being  was  to  Wliistler,  just  like 
an  old  barge,  or  a falling  rocket,  the  stimulus 
to  certain  ideas  as  to  colour  and  form  aroused 
by  the  contemplation  of  its  aspect.  The 
condemnation  of  this  mental  attitude  on  the 
ground  of  superficiality  is  not  very  reasonable, 
since  the  painter  is  after  all  engaged  with  the 
superficies  of  his  canvas. 

The  final  result  of  all  his  work  and  thought 
is  only  a surface.  There  is  no  general 
principle  by  which  the  soul  of  a man  can  be 
painted.  If  it  is  not  visible  and  recognisable 
in  some  superficial  hue  or  form  it  cannot 
be  represented  except  by  some  arbitrary 
symbol  which  is  generally  accepted  and  under- 
stood. 

What  makes  Whistler  inferior  as  a portrait 
painter  to  Velasquez  or  Gainsborough  is  his 

25 


WHISTLER 


idealism  which  would  not  permit  him  to 
correct  and  add  to  his  first  impression  the 
minutiae  which  differentiate  the  particular 
individual  he  has  to  portray  from  all  other 
individuals.  The  particular  features  of  the 
person  were  not  so  essential  to  the  carrying 
out  of  his  original  idea. 

A hair’s  breadth  in  line,  an  infinitesimal 
modification  of  hue  might  have  brought  the 
likeness  nearer  to  Nature,  but  if  this  should 
endanger  the  simplicity  of  his  idea,  it  was 
not  to  be  entertained  for  an  instant.  He 
would  not  allow  that  great  bullying  cuckoo 
Nature  to  hustle  out  his  poor  little  nestling  of 
an  idea.  Naturally  this  intransigent  attitude 
is  not  one  which  is  calculated  to  bring  forth 
the  best  results  as  portraits,  but  it  may  lead  to 
perfect  results  pictorially.  Miss  Alexander, 
the  two  Lady  Meux,  Sarasate,  Rose  Corder, 
are  what  they  pretend  to  be,  splendid 
harmonies  of  colour  and  line. 

At  the  time  when  Whistler’s  eminence  was 
hotly  contested,  it  was  even  denied  that  his 
pictures  had  colour.  Burne  Jones,  however, 
who  had  appreciation  for  colour,  though  little 
originality  in  his  own  handling  of  it,  admitted 
2 6 


WHISTLER 


that  the  nocturne  in  blue  and  silver  had  fine 
colour,  but  the  general  verdict  was  that 
Whistler’s  pictures  were  “grimy  grey,”  “dirty,” 
“ colourless.” 

The  fact  is  that  since  Turner  there  had  been 
no  great  colourist  unless  we  except  Watts. 
This  extraordinary  man  however  neglected  his 
own  remarkable  gifts  to  pursue  the  Fata 
Morgana  of  the  colour  of  the  masters.  This 
led  to  his  disastrous  excursions  into  confused 
unhappy  and  over  ripe  colour,  which  was  and 
is  still  accepted  as  beautiful  because  it  reminds 
us  of  Titian. 

The  Pre-Raphaelites  who  one  and  all  had  no 
conception  of  it  had  accustomed  the  public  to  an 
orgie  of  strident  greens,  raw  purples,  Reckitt’s 
blues,  smarting  yellows,  searing  scarlets,  until  all 
eyes,  debauched  with  kaleidoscopic  views,  failed 
to  see  anything  in  Whistler  but  black  and  grey. 
Yet  the  supreme  test  of  a colourist  is  the  faculty 
of  making  black  and  grey  appear  valuable  as 
colours,  and  not  merely  as  a repoussoir.  All 
the  great  painters  had  this  faculty  at  times, 
though  not  by  any  means  always.  Franz 
Hals’s  blacks  were  usually  valueless,  and 
Turner’s  abandonment  of  it  often  led  to 


29 


WHISTLER 


strident  tones.  Among  moderns  the  late 
Hercules  Brabazon’s  use  of  black  and  grey  was 
unfailing,  by  some  magic  they  became  intensely 
valuable  as  colour. 

Whistler’s  blacks,  greys  and  whites  were 
invariably  colours  of  paramount  importance 
in  the  scheme,  and  I know  of  no  instance 
where  they  failed. 


Ill 


Nocturnes 

When  we  come  to  the  Nocturnes,  although 
the  influence  of  the  Japanese  is  still  traceable, 
as  in  the  high  horizon  and  disposition  of  the 
Nocturne  in  Blue  and  Gold,  Valparaiso,  the 
low  horizon  and  amazing  bridge  of  the 
Nocturne  in  Blue  and  Silver,  Old  Battersea 
Bridge,  yet  it  is  in  this  field  that  Whistler 
was  pre-eminently  original  and  solitary. 

It  is  inexplicable  to  me,  and  was  even  at  the 
time  when  some  of  these  pictures  were  first 
exhibited,  when  I was  a lad,  that  there  were 
so  few  not  only  to  appreciate  their  beauty  but 
to  recognise  their  truth.  Whistler’s  Nocturnes 
were  the  first  pictures  to  arouse  my  entire 
interest  and  enthusiasm.  Here  at  last  was  a 
painter  who  took  for  his  theme  the  most 
commonplace  subject  which  any  of  us  could 
see  for  himself — the  ugly  warehouses,  the 

31 


WHISTLER 


prosaic  bridges,  the  lumbering  barges  of  our 
own  river,  and  transforming  them,  not,  as 
Turner  did,  by  dramatic  contrasts  and  arbitrary 
compositions  into  things  of  magical  beauty, 
but  by  sheer  observation  and  the  utmost 
humility  and  awe.  I remember  well  being 
struck  quite  breathless  with  the  Nocturne  in 
Blue  and  Silver  of  Mr  Alexander.  It  has 
the  very  majesty  of  night.  The  peculiar 
silvery  blue  of  this  picture,  which  permeates 
the  whole  with  one  atmosphere,  Whistler’s 
own  blue,  is  still  a mystery  to  me.  I suspect 
that  one  of  the  reasons  of  the  universal 
execration  of  the  Nocturnes  when  they  first 
appeared  is  that  they  leave  the  critic  nothing 
to  say,  nothing  on  which  to  expand.  They 
mean  nothing,  they  teach  no  moral  Jesson, 
they  explain  nothing ; and  the  critic,  who, 
after  all,  poor  man,  must  have  his  theme, 
is  rendered  mute,  possibly  with  admiration, 
but  with  an  irritating  sense  of  being  entirely 
“de  trop.”  I shall  not  make  the  mistake  of 
attempting  a detailed  description  of  the 
Nocturnes.  Although  dealing  with  subjects 
so  nearly  identical,  calm  nights  by  the  water, 
it  is  wonderful  how  little  of  a formula  is  felt, 

V- 


WHISTLER 


and  how  each  has  its  own  character  and 
atmosphere. 

The  Nocturne  in  Blue  and  Silver  of  Mr 
Alexander  is,  I think,  an  effect  of  moonlight, 
but  not  quite  full  moon.  So  is  the  Nocturne  in 
Blue  and  Gold , Valparaiso  Bay,  but  the  hour  is 
perhaps  a little  earlier  and  we  are  aware  of  a 
clearer  atmosphere  and  a more  brilliant  colour, 
subdued  though  it  be. 

The  Nochirne  in  Blue  and  Silver  of  Mrs 
Leyland,  again,  is  different  in  tone,  and  seems 
to  me  to  be  the  late  evening  of  a rainy  day, 
whilst  the  nocturne,  Grey  and  Gold,  West- 
minster, is  intense  in  gloom,  like  the  Nocturne 
in  Grey  and  Gold,  Battersea  Bridge. 

How  different,  again,  are  the  two  twilight 
effects,  Entrance  to  Southampton  Water  and 
Valparaiso,  Crepuscule. 


wc 


33 


IV 

Whistler’s  Later  Works 

Twenty  years  ago,  or  about  the  time  when  he 
first  exhibited  at  the  Society  of  British  Artists, 
Whistler’s  position  was  hotly  discussed,  and  his 
pre-eminence  as  a painter  and  etcher  still 
denied  him  by  the  mass  of  the  public  who  are 
interested  in  works  of  art.  Let  us  try  and 
find  out  how  far,  apart  from  the  man’s  person- 
ality, this  attitude  can  be  justified.  No  doubt 
he  would  never  have  been  elected  President 
if  there  were  not  a large  body  of  brother- 
artists  who  had  followed  his  career  and  re- 
cognised his  past  achievements.  But  if  we 
were  to  project  ourselves  again  back  to  1884, 
let  us  say,  must  we  admit  that  all  the  work 
of  that  period  and  since  is  unworthy  of  a very 
high  place  in  our  estimation  ? To  take  some 
of  the  “ important  ” works  (if  we  must  return 
to  that  disastrous  word),  there  are  the 

34 


WHISTLER 


Sarasate , the  two  Lady  Meux,  the  Lady 
Archibald  and  Lady  Colin  Campbell,  Theodore 
Duret,  Nocturne,  St  Mark's,  Miss  Kinsella.  If 
the  first  three  I have  mentioned  are,  as  I hold 
them  to  be,  masterpieces  worthy  to  stand  by 
Velasquez  or  Reynolds,  how  many  masterpieces, 
we  must  ask  ourselves,  were  being  produced 
in  England  from  that  period  to  this  ? And  if 
we  must  honestly  reply,  very,  very  few,  then 
certainly  the  dubious  or  actively  hostile  feeling 
which  was  still  prevalent  is  unjustifiable. 

Besides  the  oils,  there  are  all  the  Venice 
series  of  etchings  at  Dowdeswells  and  the  Fine 
Arts,  and  a host  of  small  oils,  water-colours, 
and  lithographs.  Even  the  etchings,  superb  as 
they  are  now  acknowledged  to  be,  were  at  the 
time  received  deprecatingly  or  slightingly  ; and 
if  Brabazon’s  work  was,  during  his  lifetime,  as 
I am  thankful  to  admit,  generously  admired 
for  its  qualities  within  its  limitations,  then 
surely  such  a water-colour  as  the  “ Chelsea 
shops”  of  Mr  Cowan  should  have  been 
acclaimed  with  enthusiasm. 

In  Sarasate,  Whistler  found  a model  after 
his  own  heart.  Seeing  the  two  together  in 
the  studio,  one  might  almost  have  taken  them 

35 


WHISTLER 


for  brothers.  The  black  curly  hair,  the  small 
figure,  elegant  yet  nervous  and  well  knit,  the 
southern  colouring  and  still  more  the  southern 
excitability  and  frankness,  were  common  to  both. 
In  the  portrait  Sarasate  stands  almost  like  a 
boxer  or  dancer,  alert  and  dainty,  one  foot 
forward,  so  lightly  poised  that  he  seems  to 
have  just  dropped  down  like  Whistler’s  own 
butterfly.  Yet  in  spite  of  this  impression  of 
lightness  and  swiftness,  in  spite  of  the  low 
tone  which  comes  from  his  standing  at  some 
distance  from  us,  there  is  no  want  of  solidity. 
The  floor  is  a solid  floor,  the  dress  coat  is 
palpable  stuff ; the  head  is  modelled  with 
all  Whistler’s  perfection  of  tone,  and  with 
a realism  and  truth  that  makes  it  an  excellent 
portrait  as  well. 

Both  the  Lady  Meax  are  excellent  examples 
of  the  late  Whistler.  The  portrait  “in  pink 
and  grey,”  which  is  the  better  known  of  the 
two,  most  delicate  in  colour,  suffers  a little, 
I think,  from  the  oddity  and  clumsiness  of 
the  costume.  The  cut  of  the  bodice  makes 
a heavy  line,  and  the  hat  is  a veritable  market 
basket.  However,  Whistler  w as  always  frankly 
of  his  own  period  ; and  if  this  picture  “dates,” 

36 


DIEPPE  BEACH 

( By  permission  of  Douglas  Freshfeld,  Esq. ) 


WHISTLER 


that  is  precisely  what  a portrait  should  do,  as 
witness  the  infantas  of  Velasquez,  who  appear 
to  be  standing  in  a sort  of  magnified  bird-cage. 
The  second  Lady  Meax  is  suave  and 
majestic.  The  fur  cloak,  as  it  drops  from  her 
shoulders,  is  grand  in  its  sweep,  and  the  white 
edge  of  the  robe  is  like  the  foam  that  curls 
round  the  feet  of  Venus. 

In  the  portrait  of  Theodore  Dui'et,  both  the 
type  of  the  sitter  and  the  scheme  of  the  picture 
is  not  sympathetic  to  Whistler’s  style. 

The  heavy,  strongly  marked  features,  the 
bold  relief  of  the  black  suit  against  a pink 
background,  is  suggestive  of  a vulgarity  which 
a painter  of  Mr  Sargent’s  force  might  have 
triumphantly  eluded,  but  which  grates  a little 
in  Whistler.  It  was  an  experiment  which  he 
wisely  never  repeated.  As  for  the  Miss 
Kinsella,  most  pathetic  of  all  his  portraits, 
one  can  only  say  that  it  is  an  exquisite  ghost. 
As  colour  it  is  fantastically  beautiful,  and  the 
drawing  of  the  hand  holding  the  iris  is  sug- 
gestive of  Piero  della  Francesca.  I understand 
that  a great  many  sittings  were  required  for 
this  portrait,  and  it  is  evident  that  W7histler’s 
fanatic  pursuit  of  perfection  made  him  at  last 

39 


WHISTLER 


shrink  from  all  precision  of  statement  which 
disturbed  his  ideal  like  some  outrage. 

This  surely  is  a beautiful  and  appropriate 
ending  to  a fine  artist’s  work. 

There  are  Turner’s  and  Watt’s  canvases 
which  true  piety  would  cause  us  to  burn. 
Their  ambitions  and  cravings  went  on  after 
their  powers  had  long  ceased,  and  the  spectacle 
is  distressing  to  such  as  are  not  disposed  to 
jeer.  But  Whistler’s  dignity  and  discretion 
as  an  artist  are  in  the  most  curious  contrast  to 
his  behaviour  as  a man.  No  one  looking  at 
Miss  Kinsella  could  guess  that  it  was  the  last 
full-length  he  painted.  It  might  be  the  first 
sketch  of  a young  man  bubbling  over  with 
vitality.  It  is  the  last  word,  and  the  word  is 
faint  and  low,  but  not  faltering,  or  foolish,  or 
false.  Contemplating  it,  one  repeats  the  last 
words  of  Michael  Angelo’s  sonnet,  “ Ah,  speak 
low.” 


4° 


V 


The  Whistler  Memorial  Exhibition 

The  Whistler  Memorial  Exhibition  was  a 
revelation  even  to  those  who,  like  myself,  may 
claim  some  familiarity  with  his  life’s  work. 
Certain  of  his  pictures  always  recur  to  the 
memory  by  the  splendour  of  their  achievement, 
but  we  required  to  be  convinced,  or  at  least 
reminded,  that  he  was  the  one  artist  of  our 
time  who  seemed  incapable  of  blundering,  and 
whose  work,  from  the  minute  finish  of  The 
Pool  to  the  excessive  slightness  of  The  Beach, 
was  invariably  flawless. 

Whistler’s  work  always  suffered  from  exhibi- 
tions in  company  with  that  of  other  men. 
The  extreme  delicacy  of  his  tone,  the  suavity 
and  distinction  of  his  handling,  was  not  capable 
of  competing  with  the  strident  clamour  of  the 
ordinary  exhibition. 

When  he  exhibited  in  the  company  of  others, 

41 


WHISTLER 


as  in  the  Grosvenor  Gallery,  the  Society  of 
British  Artists,  and  the  International  Society 
of  Sculptors,  Painters,  and  Engravers,  he  was 
always  careful  to  group  his  works  together,  so 
as  to  minimise  the  competitive  effect.  But  he 
was  seen  to  best  advantage  in  an  exhibition 
entirely  devoted  to  his  own  work  and  organised 
by  himself,  as  at  the  Pall  Mall  Galleries  in 
1874,  the  Fine  Arts  in  1880  and  1881,  the 
little  - known  exhibition  at  the  Working 
Women’s  College,  in  Queen’s  Square,  in  1888, 
and  finally  the  most  representative  exhibition 
of  his  work  during  his  lifetime  at  Goupil’s  in 
1892. 

The  recent  Exhibition  at  the  New  Gallery 
was,  of  course,  the  most  complete  that  had 
hitherto  been  held,  with  the  exception  per- 
haps of  that  at  the  Boston  Galleries  last  year. 

The  latter  contained  all  of  Mr  Freer’s  mag- 
nificent collection,  including  The  Thames  in  Ice, 
The  Great  Sea,  La  Princesse  du  pays  de  la 
Porcelaine,  The  Balcony ; Nocturne , Grey  and 
Silver  ; Nocturne,  Blue  and  Silver,  Bognor.  Other 
important  examples  which  were  not  included  in 
the  Memorial  Exhibition  in  London  were  : The 
Little  White  Girl,  or  Symphony  in  White,  No.  2, 
42 


Etching 

THE  UNSAFE  TENEMENT. 


WHISTLER 


universally  acknowledged  as  a masterpiece ; 
Nocturne  in  Blue  and  Silver,  Cremorne  Lights  ; The 
Music  Room,  containing  a portrait  of  his  sister, 
Lady  Haden;  Die  Lange  Leizen  ; and  the  famous 
Nocturne  in  Black  and  Gold,  the  Falling  Rocket, 
which  was  the  chief  occasion  of  Ruskin’s  im- 
moderate attack.  With  these  exceptions,  the 
Exhibition  at  the  New  Gallery  was  complete, 
as  it  included  nearly  all  his  etchings,  and,  I 
believe,  all  the  lithographs. 

One  might  have  expected  that  an  artist 
who  deliberately  restricted  his  choice  of  sub- 
ject, and  who  repeated  his  motives  so  often  in 
the  Nocturnes  and  Portraits,  would  suffer  to 
some  extent  by  having  all  his  work  in  a single 
Exhibition.  In  the  case  of  Watts,  for  instance, 
the  Exhibition  at  the  Royal  Academy  certainly 
contained  some  disastrous  proximities,  as  the 
later  work  on  the  whole  suffered  by  comparison 
with  the  earlier,  and  much  tedium  was  involved 
in  the  study  of  many  vast  pictures  which  were 
partial  or  entire  failures. 

The  explanation  of  Whistler’s  unvarying 
success  lies  in  his  limited  ambition.  In  one 
sense  of  course  his  ambition  was  very  high,  as 
he  demanded  nothing  short  of  perfection  in 

45 


WHISTLER 


workmanship  ; but  he  never  attempted  direct 
brilliant  sunlight,  or  the  play  of  light  of  the  Im- 
pressionists and  of  Watts,  or  the  fresh  green 
of  verdure  and  foliage  ; whilst,  of  course,  it  was 
a matter  of  principle  as  well  as  of  instinct 
with  him  to  avoid  all  didactic  or  historical 
work. 

In  comparing  the  life  work  of  Watts  and 
Whistler,  we  are  confronted  once  more  with 
the  problem  that  has  divided  the  schools  from 
time  immemorial.  Is  it  better  for  a great 
artist  to  devote  his  energies  to  subjects  which 
appeal  to  the  great  heart  of  the  public,  even 
at  the  cost  of  style  and  beauty,  or  to  express 
himself  without  consideration  of  the  desires 
and  aspirations  of  his  fellow-men  ? It  is 
singular  that,  whilst  the  great  mass,  with  the 
cruel  tardiness  that  is  so  characteristic  of  the 
British  public  of  to-day,  flocked  to  lay  their 
withered  laurels  on  the  grave  of  the  great 
Whistler,  the  younger  generation  of  painters, 
in  whose  hands  the  future  of  English  art  lies, 
show  a tendency  to  reaction,  and  turn  rather 
to  pay  tribute  to  Watts.  I am  not  in  sympathy 
with  this  tendency. 

To  Watts  the  great  portrait-painter,  who 

46 


Etching 

LA  MERE  GERARD.  (jr.  9) 


Ufr.f3~  DfUir,  . f\„ 


WHISTLER 


achieved  the  portraits  of  Lady  Margaret 
Beaumont  and  Child,  Lady  Cavendish-Bentinck, 
Lord  Campbell,  Marie  Casavetti,  Joachim,  I am 
ready  to  do  homage  ; but  I consider  that  all 
his  ideal  work  is  practically  or  entirely  a failure, 
not  because  I have  any  d priori  objection  to 
ideal  painting  as  such,  but  because  it  was  not 
in  this  branch  that  Watts’  special  talent  lay. 
Reynolds,  in  his  lectures,  held  up  to  our 
admiration  the  ideal  school,  but  he  had  the 
modesty  and  wit  to  confine  his  own  efforts  to 
portrait-painting,  in  which  he  showed  himself 
from  first  to  last  pre-eminent. 

If,  therefore,  we  pay  no  regard  to  a painter’s 
intentions,  and  simply  judge  the  work  on  its 
merits,  and  to  my  mind  this  is  the  only  sane 
attitude  for  a critic,  Whistler’s  work  stands 
alone  in  its  generation  for  its  unvarying  per- 
fection, whether  in  oil,  etching,  water-colour, 
pastel,  or  lithograph. 

Opinions  have  differed,  and  will  continue  to 
do  so,  whether  what  he  set  himself  to  say  was 
always  worth  saying,  but  no  competent  critic 
would  now  maintain  that  it  was  not  admirably 
said. 

The  present  generation  has  forgotten,  and 
wd  40 


WHISTLER 


Whistler  himself  encouraged  this  ignorance, 
that  his  earlier  work  was  received  with  en- 
thusiasm in  England.  Not  only  did  he  exhibit 
from  first  to  last  at  the  Royal  Academy  as  many 
as  thirty-six  works,  if  we  include  etchings  and 
dry  points,  but  the  most  prominent  critics, 
such  as  Palgrave  in  the  “Saturday  Review”  and 
F.  G.  Stephens  in  the  “Athenaeum,”  welcomed 
his  work  with  words  of  unstinted  praise.  The 
change  in  the  style,  the  greater  breadth  and 
freedom  which  gradually  grew,  was  viewed 
with  suspicion,  but  the  culmination  came  with 
the  Grosvenor  Gallery  Exhibition  of  1877  and 
Ruskin’s  attack  in  “ Fors  Clavigera,”  with  the 
subsequent  libel  suit.  From  that  period  till 
he  was  elected  President  of  the  Society  of 
British  Artists  in  1886,  Whistler’s  fortunes  and 
his  reputation  were  at  a very  low  ebb.  The 
recovery  has  been  a very  slow  one,  as  he 
personally  profited  very  little  by  it. 

Pictures  that  were  sold  privately  by  him  for 
a few  pounds  during  that  period  realised  high 
prices  for  their  owners. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  understand  the  change 
in  public  opinion  from  the  time  of  the  Grosvenor 
Gallery  of  1877.  In  Whistler’s  previous  work, 

5o 


WHISTLER 


whatever  influence  was  paramount  apart  from 
the  study  of  nature  was  at  least  European.  At 
the  Piano  in  I860,  Thames  in  Ice  in  1862,  The 
Last  of  Old  Westminster , 1863,  Lie  Lange  Leizen, 
1864,  showed  chiefly  the  influence  of  Courbet 
and  to  a slight  extent  of  Rossetti ; but  with 
the  Nocturnes  came  Hiroshige,  Hokusai,  and 
Utamaro,  and  these  Japanese  artists  being 
almost  unknown  to  the  general  public,  were 
incomprehensible  when  adapted  by  Whistler. 
Of  course  in  these  as  in  all  Whistler’s  work, 
the  foundation  was  nature,  but  since  very  few 
had  troubled  themselves  to  study  a moonlight 
effect  on  the  Thames,  the  bewilderment  was 
not  lessened.  The  general  feeling  was,  i(  If 
art  is  made  into  such  a cheap  and  easy  matter  as 
this,  we  shall  be  overwhelmed  with  Harmonies, 
Nocturnes,  and  Symphonies,  each  done  in  an 
hour  or  less,  and  claiming  our  attention,  because, 
forsooth,  they  represent  night  effects.” 

Whistler  thus  satirised  this  attitude  in  the 
gentle  art  of  making  enemies.  ((  Certain 
picture-makers  would  be  induced  to  cross  the 
river  at  noon,  in  a boat,  before  negotiating  a 
nocturne  in  order  to  make  sure  of  a detail  on 
the  bank,  that  honestly  the  purchaser  might 

5i 


WHISTLER 


exact,  and  out  of  which  he  might  have  been 
tricked  by  the  night ! ” 

To  some  of  us  the  earlier  works  remain  the 
highest  examples  of  his  art. 

There  is  a glow  of  colour  and  a vigour  of 
handling  in  At  the  Piano,  The  Last  oj  Old 
Westminster,  The  Bine  Wave,  Biarritz,  which  we 
do  not  find  in  his  more  sophisticated  later 
works.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Nocturnes 
appeal  to  us  by  their  exquisite  tenderness  and 
a sublety  of  tone  that  makes  them  the  most 
original  achievements  of  modern  art. 

No  one  had  dared  before  Whistler,  and 
indeed  no  one  has  dared  since,  to  attempt 
pictures  with  such  few  elements.  Because 
this  is  the  point,  the  fewer  the  elements  the 
more  precise  they  must  be  to  satisfy  the  re- 
quirements. 

It  is  a well-known  phenomenon  that  on  a 
starry  night,  if  the  observer  were  to  attempt 
to  fix  a very  small  star,  it  would  be  invisible. 

He  can  only  see  it,  paradoxically,  by  not 
looking  at  it,  but  at  some  larger  constellation 
in  its  neighbourhood.  He  then  becomes 
aware  of  the  small  point  of  light  in  the  corner 
of  his  focus  of  vision. 


52 


Etching 

LA  MARCHANDE  DE  MOUTARDE  (IV.  16) 


WHISTLER 


Something  analogous  to  this  was  achieved 
in  some  of  Whistler’s  nocturnes.  If  we  look 
at  the  centre  of  vision,  where  the  lights  are 
hovering,  we  are  aware  of  the  dark  mass  of  a 
barge  in  the  foreground.  Fix  this  mass  and  it 
disappears.  Return  to  the  more  lighted 
portion,  and  it  reappears,  a ghostly  brooding 
bulk.  Such  accomplishment  partakes  almost 
of  magic. 

Others  besides  Whistler  have  expressed  the 
awe  and  majesty  of  night.  Turner,  Daubigny, 
Millet.  But  Whistler  is  the  only  one  who  has 
expressed  its  silence,  because  it  is  the  silence  of 
a city,  and  if  we  listen  keenly  we  can  hear 
faint,  faint  sleepy  sounds,  the  distant  hoot  of  a 
steamer,  the  soft  puff  of  a breaking  rocket,  the 
mournful  plash  of  a ripple  thrown  by  the 
passing  barge  looming  awfully  against  the  sky. 

Perhaps  the  most  wonderful  characteristic  of 
Whistler’s  genius  was  his  utter  abandonment 
to  the  particular  medium  he  was  handling  at 
the  moment,  so  that  he  would  not  allow  the 
qualities  of  an  etching  to  encroach  in  his  oil- 
painting,  or  the  ideal  of  a water-colour  to 
interfere  with  that  of  a pastel. 

Even  Rembrandt  ometimes  exacted  too 

55 


WHISTLER 


much  : he  painted  with  the  needle,  as  in  the 
marvellous  Three  Crosses,  and  drew  outlines 
with  the  brush,  as  in  the  Christ  before  Pilate. 
But  Whistler  never ; his  etchings,  even  the 
worst  of  them,  and  some  of  the  later  ones  are 
rather  empty  and  frivolous,  remain  essentially 
a dance  of  lines,  whilst  his  painting  is  always 
a dance  of  colour  and  tone.  Hence  it  is  almost 
incredible  that  the  etcher  of  The  Pool  should 
be  the  painter  of  the  Nocturne  in  Blue  and 
Silver : there  seems  to  be  nothing  in  common 
between  the  two. 


56 


VI 

Whistler’s  Personality 

Enough  and  indeed  too  much  has  been  said  of 
the  personality  of  Whistler.  It  cannot  be  said 
of  him,  as  of  Falstaff,  that  being  witty  himself 
he  was  the  cause  of  wit  in  others.  Indeed  we 
may  rather  say  that  having  bad  taste  himself 
he  provoked  bad  taste  in  others. 

An  unpleasant  instance  of  this  was  very 
noticeable  at  his  death.  Hardly  was  the 
breath  out  of  his  body  than  various  persons, 
whose  only  claim  to  our  attention  was  the 
high  pillory  on  which  he  had  exposed  them, 
proceeded  to  exhibit  with  much  complacency 
the  honourable  scars  which  had  resulted  from 
their  exposure.  When  an  old  colleague  of  his 
whom  he  had  quite  gratuitously  insulted 
generously  forgot  their  differences  and  assisted 
at  his  funeral,  one  smart  gentleman  of  the 
press  considered  the  moment  opportune  for 

57 


WHISTLER 


quoting  one  of  Whistler’s  silliest  puns  on  his 
name.  No  doubt  Whistler  damaged  his  re- 
putation irretrievably  for  his  lifetime  by  his 
mountebank  airs,  but  that  fact  is  not  entirely 
creditable  to  our  taste  and  perspicacity. 

In  France  a man  may  wear  a hat  of  any 
shape  he  pleases,  and  may  amuse  himself  and 
others  by  writing  cryptic  letters  to  the  press, 
without  such  behaviour  affecting  the  considera- 
tion of  his  work,  which  is  still  judged  on  its 
merits.  But  the  English  public,  being  quite 
distrustful  of  its  own  taste,  is  peculiarly  liable 
to  be  hoodwinked  by  solemn  pontifical  airs 
among  artists,  and  cannot  understand  that  any 
one  can  be  a very  great  artist  and  a very  little 
man. 

And  yet  we  know  that  Titian  was  sournois, 
Morland  a drunkard,  Turner,  mean  and  jealous 
and  with  vulgar  tastes,  Byron  a poseur , Rous- 
seau criminally  weak.  It  was  concluded  that 
Whistler  was  a slight,  light,  gay  personality, 
whose  work  was  of  no  account,  because  he  did 
not  wear  his  heart  upon  his  sleeve,  and  always 
appeared  gay  and  insouciant.  Yet  in  one 
point,  at  least,  he  showed  himself  adamant. 
His  rancour  was  inveterate,  and  extended  itself 
58 


Etching 

TYZAC,  WHITELEY  & CO.  (W.  39) 


WHISTLER 


to  the  friends  and  relations  of  those  with  whom 
he  had  quarrelled.  The  regrettable  conse- 
quence was  that  the  whole  matter  became  em- 
bittered and  obscured.  The  warfare  became 
one  of  clans  and  camps,  and  each  side  snatched 
up  any  weapon  that  offered  itself.  We  may 
hope  that  now  the  air  is  slowly  clearing,  and 
that  when  it  does  Whistler  the  artist  will 
emerge  and  take  the  place  that  rightfully 
belongs  to  him,  among  the  great  artists  of 
our  or  any  time. 

Although,  as  I have  said,  too  much  has 
been  made  of  Whistler’s  personality,  and  the 
artist  has  been  overwhelmed  in  the  man,  yet 
some  description  of  his  peculiarities  is  not  un- 
becoming, and  will  be  of  interest  to  those  who 
never  met  him. 

Under  any  guise  Whistler  would  have  been 
personally  remarkable.  He  had  a small,  neat, 
wiry  figure,  slight  but  with  very  broad 
shoulders ; his  hands  were  small  and  his 
fingers  were  pointed. 

His  throat  was  very  broad  and  at  the  same 
time  very  long,  and  on  this  firm  throat  and 
neck  his  head  was  held  very  erect.  His 
complexion  was  sallow,  but  warm  in  colour  and 
6l 


WHISTLER 


easily  flushed  when  excited.  His  Italian 
colouring  contrasted  strikingly  with  the  blue 
eyes.  At  first  this  was  not  perhaps  noticeable, 
as  he  had  a way  of  peering  through  half- 
closed  eyelids,  partly,  no  doubt,  from  short 
sight,  but  perhaps  too  from  his  quizzical  way 
of  looking  at  things.  But  when  the  intensely 
blue  eyes  opened  suddenly  in  this  warm, 
coloured  face,  one  realised  the  man  of  the 
Southern  States.  He  always  wore  a moustache 
and  small  imperial.  The  hair  was  the  greatest 
peculiarity  ; this  was  abundant  to  the  day  of 
his  death,  and  stood  all  over  his  head  in  little 
jet-black  curls,  not  tight  and  crisp  but  fine 
and  soft,  more  like  feathers  than  hair.  In 
this  extraordinary  shock  of  loose  hair  the 
famous  white  feather  stood  out,  a beacon  and 
a warning  of  which  he  was  very  vain.  He 
was  scrupulously  neat  and  clean  in  person,  and 
this  neatness  extended  to  all  his  actions. 

His  palettes  were  beautifully  wiped,  his 
brushes  faultlessly  kept : everything  betokened 
the  fastidious  man.  As  for  his  general 
behaviour,  it  was  foreign,  one  may  even  say 
exotic.  He  spoke  in  a loud,  harsh,  high  voice, 
in  the  exaggerated  nasal  drawl  of  an  American. 

62 


Etching 

BLAC  LION  WHARF. 


WHISTLER 


How  far  this  Yankeefying  of  English  was 
affected  it  is  impossible  to  say,  as  the  accent 
was  purely  English.  I think  he  used  the  loud 
drawl  as  one  of  his  weapons  for  disconcerting 
the  enemy. 

His  gesture  was  very  frequent,  especially  in 
a trick  of  thrusting  out  the  hand,  with  all 
the  fingers  pointed  together  but  the  thumb 
upright.  He  spoke  French  very  fluently  and 
with  an  accent  that,  if  not  faultless,  none  but 
a Frenchman  could  criticise. 

His  peculiarities  were  not  lost  in  the  setting, 
since  he  exaggerated  them  all.  Everything 
he  wore  was  designed  by  him  in  a shape  that 
was,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  uncommon. 

The  tall  hat  was  extra  tall  and  had  a wide 
flat  brim.  The  black  bow  tie  was  enormously 
long  and  thin,  and  one  end  was  invariably 
thrown  over  one  shoulder.  The  coat  was 
often  thrown  over  one  shoulder  as  well.  He 
had  a small  waist,  and  the  frock-coat  was 
specially  designed  to  exhibit  it.  I believe 
even  the  boots  were  peculiar — no  doubt  others 
who  have  studied  him  more  closely  could 
attest  this.  Finally  there  was  the  cane  or 
wand,  not  three  feet  long,  like  that  of  most  of 

WE  65 


WHISTLER 


us,  but  about  four,  and  therefore  when  used  in 
perambulation  held  at  arm’s  length,  and  at  the 
height  of  the  shoulder. 

He  was  always  screwing  his  eye-glass,  which 
had  no  rim  and  no  string,  into  his  right  eye, 
and  when  this  fell,  as  it  occasionally  did,  he 
nonchalantly  fetched  another  out  of  his  pocket, 
in  which  he  had  a store.  Who  that  beheld 
this  remarkable  apparition  idly  strolling  down 
Chelsea  Embankment  would  have  recognised 
the  silent,  earnest  worker  with  enormous  goggles 
that  had  just  been  cast  off  in  the  studio  ? 
To  many  I suppose  all  this  is  simply  puerile 
and  obnoxious ; but  I count  myself  among 
those  who  are  grateful  to  anybody  who  has 
the  courage  to  vivify  our  drab  lives ; and  when 
a great  man  like  Dickens,  Balzac,  Tennyson, 
Disraeli,  or  Stevenson  makes  himself  con- 
spicuous, I adore  him  the  more  for  it. 
Laughter  is  a good  thing,  and  whether  we 
laugh  with  or  at  our  rebels,  what  matters  it  ? 
Note  by  the  way  that  all  these  men  who  out- 
raged decorum  were  witty  men,  not  pretentious 
dullards,  and  quite  ready  to  join  in  the  hilarity 
aroused  by  their  own  vagaries.  They  were 
distinguished  in  their  persons  as  in  their  gifts, 
66 


■4 


Dky  Point 

THE  MISER.  {IV.  65) 


WHISTLER 


and  were  not  ashamed  of  the  distinction,  but 
emphasised  it  and  gloried  in  it.  There  was 
no  pose  or  affectation  in  their  antics,  for  they 
truely  expressed  themselves,  scouting  the 
snobbishness  of  the  comme  il  faut.  No  doubt 
most  men  conform  naturally  with  the  ordinary 
standards  because  to  violate  them  is  no 
pleasure,  but  such  as  suppress  their  natural 
inclinations  towards  eccentricity  may  surely 
be  more  justly  accused  of  pose  or  affectation 
than  he  who  gives  them  free  vain. 

It  is  regrettable  that  Whistler’s  striking 
personality  has  not  been  adequately  rendered 
in  portraiture.  What  a perfect  “Whistler” 
he  would  have  made  at  the  dark  end  of  his 
studio,  a mysterious  sprite,  half  Mephistopheles, 
half  child,  an  “arrangement  in  black,” 
relieved  by  the  white  feather  and  the 
sardonic  gleam  of  the  eyeglass  ! Of  his  own 
attempts,  by  far  the  best  is  the  little  sketch 
owned  by  Mr  Douglas  Freshfield.  It  is  a 
charming  group,  but  as  a portrait  it  is  not  to 
be  mentioned  with  a masterpiece  like  the 
Sarasate.  The  earlier  half-length  has  been 
absurdly  overrated.  Pleasant  and  sweet  as  a 
piece  of  painting,  it  is  yet  slovenly  and  slip- 

69 


WHISTLER 


shod  in  workmanship  and  almost  unrecognisable 
as  a portrait.  The  double  strain  of  sitting  and 
painting  was  evidently  too  much  for  his 
nervous  temperament ; the  portraits  by  other 
artists,  Helleu,  Menpes,  Boldini,  are  coarse 
performances,  in  which  all  his  elegance  and 
charm  are  lost. 

Even  Fantin,  a great  portrait-painter  at  his 
best,  rather  fumbled  the  Whistler  in  his  group, 
Hommage  a Delacroix,  in  the  Salon  of  1 864. 
It  is  by  no  means  the  best  figure  in  the  group, 
which  contained  portraits  of  Cordier,  Duranty, 
Legros,  Fantin  himself,  Champfleury,  Manet, 
Braequemond,  De  Balleroy,  and  Baudelaire. 
A second  group  by  Fantin,  which  he  sent  to 
the  Salon  in  1865,  under  the  title  of  The  Toast, 
containing  a portrait  of  Whistler  in  a Japanese 
gown,  was  afterwards  destroyed.  However, 
the  head  of  Whistler  was  cut  out  by  Fantin, 
and  now  belongs  to  Mr  Avery  of  New  York. 


70 


VII 

Whistler  as  a Writer 

In  considering  Whistler’s  literary  achievements, 
it  has  often  been  a matter  of  surprised  com- 
ment that  he  was  forty-four  years  old  before  he 
began  to  show  his  abilities  in  this  sphere. 
The  surprise  shows  some  ignorance  of  the  real 
painter’s  temperament. 

No  painter,  even  if  he  has  some  literary 
gift,  enjoys  writing,  which  seems  a stammering 
and  diffuse  mode  of  expression  compared  to 
his  own  tools,  brush  or  needle. 

Reynolds’  discourses  arose  from  his  high 
sense  of  his  position  and  its  duties,  whilst 
Whistler’s  “ Art  v.  Art  Critics,”  “ Ten  o’Clock,” 
etc.,  were  simply  the  outcome  of  the  obloquy 
under  which  he  had  silently  suffered  for  many 
years.  He  did  not  begin  to  write,  that  is, 
until  after  the  Whistler  v.  Ruskin  trial,  and 
then,  finding  himself  forced  to  fight,  he  took 

7 1 


WHISTLER 


his  coat  off  to  the  business.  Then,  of  course, 
as  he  handled  words  and  phrases,  he  began 
to  find  a certain  pleasure  in  the  turn  of  a 
phrase  and  in  the  expression  of  his  witty  and 
scornful  personality,  and  this  continued  to  the 
end  of  his  lifetime.  Indeed,  writing  grew 
almost  into  a mania,  and  such  a letter  as  that 
wherein  he  points  out  that  a certain  cartoon 
in  Vanity  Fair  was  not  by  Carlo  Pellegrini 
seems  an  unjustifiable  waste  of  time  and 
print. 

Writing  undertaken  in  this  spirit  of  mere 
impatience  and  defiance  is  not  likely  to  possess 
any  but  an  ephemeral  interest,  and  it  must  be 
admitted  that,  after  some  years,  it  all  rings 
thin : the  snippets  of  biblical  phraseology,  the 
irritating,  frenchified  terms,  the  personal  in- 
solence, the  fundamental  shallowness  of  the 
philosophy.  Yet  there  is  no  doubt  that,  at 
the  time  and  for  the  public  that  he  was 
addressing,  Whistler’s  controversial  writings 
were  beneficial,  not  only,  as  his  detractors 
have  asserted,  in  drawing  attention  to  himself, 
that  is,  as  an  advertisement,  but  in  their 
insistence  on  that  side  of  art  which  Englishmen 
are  especially  prone  to  ignore. 

72 


H 

OO 


Etching 

AMSTERDAM  FROM  THE  TOLHUIS. 


WHISTLER 


The  centuries  of  Puritanical  forebears,  I 
suppose,  are  the  cause  of  the  comical  mode  of 
approach  of  the  most  intelligent  Englishmen 
to  any  question  of  art.  They  appear  to  tackle 
the  matter  as  a kind  of  mathematical  problem 
with  clenched  fists  and  bent  brows,  determined 
to  understand  or  die  in  the  attempt.  Ruskin 
himself,  that  singular  mixture  of  Puritan  and 
Greek,  encouraged  this  attitude,  as  exemplified 
by  the  extract  from  “Modern  Painters,”  quite 
justifiably  pilloried  by  Whistler  : “ 1 have  now 
given  up  ten  years  of  my  life  to  the  single 
purpose  of  enabling  myself  to  judge  rightly  of 
art  . . . earnestly  desiring  to  ascertain,  and 
to  be  able  to  teach,  the  truth  respecting  art ; 
also  knowing  that  this  truth  was  by  time  and 
labour  definitely  ascertainable.” 

Whistler  answered,  “ So  art  has  become 
foolishly  confounded  with  education — that  all 
should  be  equally  qualified.  Whereas,  while 
polish,  refinement,  culture,  and  breeding  are 
in  no  way  arguments  for  artistic  result,  it  is 
also  no  reproach  to  the  most  finished  scholar 
or  greatest  gentleman  in  the  land  that  he  be 
absolutely  without  eye  for  painting  or  ear  for 
music ” 


7 5 


WHISTLER 


Whilst  this  is  true  enough,  it  may  be  pointed 
out,  for  the  consolation  of  those  refined  persons 
who  wish  to  appreciate  art,  that  it  is  rather 
their  attitude  that  is  at  fault,  than  any 
essential  defect  in  themselves.  The  Latin 
races  understand  better  than  we  do  that  the 
way  to  approach  questions  of  art  is  not  in  a 
spirit  of  determination  to  understand,  but  in 
one  of  preparation  to  enjoy,  and  that  one  must 
abandon  oneself  wholly  to  the  mood  of  the 
artist  instead  of  regarding  all  he  does  in  a 
rigid  and  suspicious  manner. 

If,  after  this  abandonment  of  oneself  and  all 
principles  and  pre-occupations  whatever,  dis- 
like is  still  paramount,  the  artist  is  not  thereby 
condemned,  but  the  lack  of  sympathy  between 
the  two  parties  is  evidently  insurmountable. 

Now  Ruskin,  the  most  typically  English 
critic,  with  that  curious  mixture  of  the  Celt  and 
the  Saxon,  Poet  and  Puritan,  Sensualist  and 
Moralist,  that  makes  the  modern  Englishman 
of  culture  the  most  complex  creature  of  modern 
times,  had  written  a vast  amount  on  matters 
of  art,  books  in  which  the  most  glorious 
eloquence,  the  most  searching  analysis,  flashes 
of  prophetic  insight,  passages  of  brilliant  wit 
76 


WHISTLER 


were  interspersed  with  sheerdrivellings,  shrieks 
of  rage  and  despair,  pointless  divagations,  rude 
and  uncalled-for  attacks  on  contemporaries. 
“ Modern  Painters  ” is  one  of  the  strangest 
books  of  the  world.  Begun  at  the  age  of 
twenty-three,  with  the  original  intention  of 
being  a defence  of  Turner  at  the  expense  of 
all  predecessors  and  contemporaries,  it  very  soon 
developed  to  enormous  proportions,  and  Ruskin 
in  the  first  volume,  in  all  the  exuberance  of 
youth,  set  forth  his  intentions  in  these  terms.* 
“1  shall  have  to  reprobate  the  absence  of 
study  in  the  moderns  as  much  as  its  false 
direction  in  the  ancients.  . . . 

“ 1st.  Investigate  and  arrange  the  facts  of 
nature  with  scientific  accuracy. 

“ 2nd.  Analyse  and  demonstrate  the  nature 
of  the  emotions  of  the  Beautiful  and  Sublime. 

“ 3rd.  Examine  the  particular  characters  of 
every  kind  of  scenery,  and  to  bring  to  light 
that  faultless  loveliness  which  God  has  stamped 
on  all  things. 

“ 4th.  Finally,  I shall  endeavour  to  trace  all 
this  on  the  hearts  and  minds  of  men : to 
exhibit  the  moral  function  and  end  of  art.” 

* Ruskin,  “Modern  Painters,”  vol.  i.,  Preface. 

7 7 


WHISTLER 


Such  extravagant  pretensions  as  these  could 
not  of  course  be  maintained  for  long,  and  as 
Ruskin’s  mind  broadened  with  age  he  included 
in  his  Paradise  of  the  elect  many  names  which 
he  originally  scorned.  But  at  the  moment  he 
never  had  any  misgivings  as  to  the  truth  and 
value  of  his  opinion,  and  asserted  it  with  a 
cantankerous  rudeness  which  was  the  sign  of  a 
weak  and  hysterical  nature. 

By  the  time  he  had  arrived  at  “ Fors  Clavi- 
gera,”  his  interest  in  art,  although  never 
abandoned,  had  become  absorbed  in  the  more 
pressing  matter  of  the  state  of  society  as  a 
whole.  His  growing  terror  and  rage  at  the 
condition  of  society,  which  in  this  work  first 
shows  a beginning  of  actual  insanity,  made  him 
more  and  more  impatient  of  all  modern  art 
whatever,  which  seemed  now  to  him,  as  always 
to  Carlyle,  fiddling,  like  Nero,  whilst  Rome  was 
burning. 

If  with  the  broadening  of  his  mind  Ruskin 
could  have  acquired  a calmer  attitude,  he 
would  probably  have  been  one  of  the  first  to 
recognise  Whistler’s  genius,  which  had  so  much 
in  common  with  Turner’s.  But  it  was  not  in 
the  nature  of  this  weak,  hysterical,  egotistical, 

78  ' 


Etching 

WHISTLER  WITH  THE  WHITE  LOCK 
New  York.  ( IV . 142) 


WHISTLER 


and  at  the  same  time  grandly  unselfish  man  of 
genius  to  contemplate  calmly  the  underlying 
horror  of  our  modern  civilisation.  The  greater 
insight  only  induced  greater  despair,  and  it  is 
rather  to  this  than  to  any  really  serious 
attempt  at  criticism  that  we  must  attribute  his 
onslaught. 

But  Whistler  met  Ruskin’s  unfairness,  which 
was  after  all  perfectly  honest  in  intention,  by 
an  unfairness  which  was  characteristic  of  him 
in  its  determination  to  “ score  off*  ” his  opponent 
at  any  cost,  and  his  snippets  of  Ruskin  inter- 
larded in  the  vamped-up  account  of  the  trial 
is  a grossly  unfair  proceeding,  since  the  context 
is  of  more  importance  in  Ruskin’s  writing  than 
in  almost  any  other.  Several  of  these  extracts 
have  obviously  a tinge  of  irony,  as  notably  the 
commendation  of  Prout,  and  Whistler’s  de- 
termination to  make  Ruskin  ridiculous  recoils 
on  himself. 

I do  not  intend  to  enter  at  length  into  the 
question  mainly  at  issue  between  them  con- 
cerning the  principles  of  art : what  Ruskin  with 
all  his  gifts  could  not  definitively  solve  in  some 
twenty  volumes  cannot  be  cleared  up  cursorily 
in  a little  book  concerning  his  enemy.  But 
8l 


?VF 


WHISTLER 


we  may  at  least  admit  this  much,  that  in  the 
main  question,  the  relation  of  the  artist  to  the 
social  conditions  out  of  which  he  has  grown 
and  which  environ  him,  any  one  who  has 
thought  at  all  seriously  on  the  subject  must 
find  more  true  philosophic  insight  in  Ruskin’s 
point  of  view  than  in  Whistler’s.  Indeed, 
Whistler’s  arguments  or  rather  assertions  in  the 
“Ten  o’Clock  ” are  self-destructive. 

We  begin  with  a pretty  description  of  the 
origins  of  art,  when  the  “ first  vase  was  born  in 
beautiful  proportion”  and  “all  drank  alike 
from  the  artist’s  goblets,  fashioned  cunningly, 
taking  no  note  the  while  of  the  craftsman’s 
pride,  and  understanding  not  his  glory  in  his 
work  ; drinking  at  the  cup,  not  from  choice, 
not  from  consciousness  that  it  was  beautiful, 
but  because,  forsooth,  there  was  none  other  ! ” 
“ And  the  people  lived  in  marvels  of  art — 
and  ate  and  drank  out  of  masterpieces — for 
there  was  nothing  else  to  eat  and  to  drink  out 
of,  and  no  bad  building  to  live  in.” 

“ Surely,”  Ruskin  might  have  answered  if 
he  had  not  scorned  the  absurdity  of  Whistler’s 
assertions,  “ we  may  call  such  periods 
artistic.” 


82 


Etching 

THE  PALACES.  (W.  153) 


WHISTLER 


“ There  arose  a new  class  who  discovered 
the  cheap  and  saw  fortune  in  the  facture  of 
the  sham.”  How  did  it  arise?  we  may  well 
ask.  If  through  some  alteration  in  social 
conditions,  then  surely  those  conditions  are  at 
fault.  How,  then,  can  he  say  that  “ in  no  way 
do  our  virtues  minister  to  its  worth,  in  no  way 
do  our  vices  impede  its  triumph.” 

And  is  the  only  form  of  bad  art  to  be  found 
in  the  cheap  and  the  sham  ? Shades  of  the 
early  Victorians  ! Was  there  only  the  cheap  or 
sham  in  these  expensive  monsters  ? 

Again,  in  his  pamphlet,  which  appeared 
immediately  after  the  Whistler  v.  Ruskin  trial, 
he  attacked  the  art  critics  as  a body,  and 
declared  that  they  were  an  unnecessary  evil. 
“ Let  work,  then,  be  received  in  silence,  as  it 
was  in  the  days  to  which  the  penmen  still 
point  as  an  era  when  art  was  at  its  apogee.” 
The  theme  was  developed  and  extended  in 
the  “ Ten  o’Clock,”  including  in  the  anathema, 
not  only  art  critics,  but  art  experts,  “ those 
also,  sombre  of  mien,  and  wise  with  the 
wisdom  of  books,  who  frequent  museums  and 
burrow  in  crypts.” 

It  would  be  singular,  if  we  were  not 

85 


WHISTLER 


conscious  of  Whistler’s  fundamental  bad  faith 
in  controversial  matters,  that  he  was  not 
aware  that  his  main  argument,  the  independ- 
ence of  art  and  society,  was  hereby  stultified. 

If  art  critics  and  experts  are  evil,  how  did 
this  evil  arise,  otherwise  than  through  an  evil 
condition  of  society  ? It  is  absurd  to  throw  all 
the  onus  on  the  critics  personally,  as  though 
the  decadence  was  entirely  of  their  making. 
They  fulfil  a demand,  and  if  the  demand  is 
evil,  it  is  society  that  is  responsible.  And  in 
the  main,  Ruskin  had  come  to  the  same 
conclusions  as  Whistler  in  this  matter. 
Throughout  his  later  writings  we  find  the 
conviction  that  the  mere  existence  of  the  art 
critic  is  a proof  of  the  decadence  of  society. 
Art  is  something  to  be  done  and  not  talked 
about,  and  much  of  the  wailing  that  so 
irritated  Whistler  is  on  this  very  matter.  Not 
that  Ruskin  actually  despised  the  work  that  he 
had  set  himself  to  do.  He  rather  considered 
himself  in  the  light  of  a surgeon  who  has  to 
operate  on  a diseased  body.  Of  course  he  had 
the  passion  for  expression,  for  thought,  for 
beautiful  language  which  every  great  writer 
has,  but  in  his  later  works  he  tried  to  suppress 
86 


WHISTLER 


his  exuberance  and  say  what  he  had  to  say  in 
the  sternest  and  simplest  style.  He  had 
remorselessly  thought  out  the  whole  question, 
and  his  conclusion  being,  like  Whistler  s,  that, 
in  a healthy  state  of  society,  the  art  critic 
would  find  no  place,  he  turned  with  all  his 
remaining  energy  to  sociological  questions,  and 
in  the  endeavour  to  impress  his  views  on  an 
indifferent  and  frivolous  world,  broke  his  heart 
and  wore  out  his  brain.  To  quote  again  from 
the  “ Ten  o’Clock,”  “ The  master  stands  in  no 
relation  to  the  moment  at  which  he  occurs — a 
monument  of  isolation — hinting  at  sadness — 
having  no  part  in  the  progress  of  his  fellow-men.” 

Whistler  is  characteristically  preoccupied 
with  the  master  alone,  and  if  straining  a point 
we  say  that  he  has  no  part  in  the  progress  of 
his  fellow-men,  we  must  admit  that  history 
shows  us  his  dependence  at  least  on  his  pre- 
cursors and  contemporaries  in  his  own  art, 
often  far  inferior  in  gift.  The  chain  is  un- 
broken from  Squarcione  to  Bellini,  from 
Massaccio  to  Raphael,  from  Backhuisen  to 
Turner. 

The  artist  does  not  spring,  like  Minerva, 
from  the  head  of  Jove,  mature,  complete,  and 

87 


WHISTLER 

in  full  panoply.  He  is  dependent,  none 
more  so,  on  the  condition  of  the  society  that 
surrounds  him.  To  take  a simple  test,  the 
landscape  and  genre  painter  should  find  his 
subjects  in  the  daily  life  of  his  contem- 
poraries, in  the  architecture  of  the  towns, 
in  the  costumes  of  the  people,  and  in  their 
manners  in  work  and  play  ; and  if  these  are 
ugly  and  pernicious,  ugliness  and  degradation 
will  be  the  result. 

How  many  pictures  of  the  present  day 
faithfully  represent  our  daily  life  and  thereby 
produce  beauty  ? In  England  almost  none. 
In  France  perhaps  a little  more,  and  in  Italy 
and  Spain  more  still. 

Our  working  classes  have  no  distinctive 
dress,  but  seem  to  wear  the  cast-off  clothing  of 
their  superiors  in  the  social  scale ; our  archi- 
tecture is  lamentable.  Work  in  the  towns  is 
unpicturesque  in  the  extreme,  and  play  at 
Hampstead  Heath  on  Easter  Monday,  although 
not  quite  so  hideous,  cannot  be  compared  to 
the  Kermesse  of  Rubens.  Compare  the  life  in 
a pub.  to  the  revels  portrayed  by  Brauwer, 
Teniers,  Van  Ostade,  Jan  Steen  ! The  proof 
that  our  daily  life  is  utterly  hideous  and 
88 


Etching 

THE  DOORWAY.  (IV.  154) 


WHISTLER 


unpicturesque  is  best  found  in  the  fact  that  our 
artists  have  practically  desisted  from  attempt- 
ing to  portray  it. 

On  the  one  hand,  the  Academic  painters 
laboriously  reconstruct  a past  age,  with  all  the 
tedious  and  prolix  associations  of  the  property 
box  and  the  professional  model,  and  on  the 
other,  the  most  vigorous  and  capable  talent  is 
engaged  in  forging  Old  Masters,  with  an 
accomplishment  to  which  past  ages  form  no 
parallel.  “ Therefore  have  we  cause  to  be 
merry  ! — and  to  cast  away  all  care — resolved 
that  all  is  well — as  it  ever  was — and  that  it  is 
not  meet  that  we  should  be  cried  at,  and  urged 
to  take  measures  ! ” 

Whistler  was  an  inveterate  poseur,  and  he 
must  have  known  that  this  pose  of  jauntiness 
was  unjustified  by  the  facts.  The  Rotherhithe 
and  Limehouse  that  he  etched  so  wonderfully 
were  gone  ; Chelsea  Bridge  was  superseded  by 
a structure  to  which  every  artist  must  shut  his 
eyes  in  passing.  Cremorne  was  gone,  and  the 
very  house  where  he  died  was  a poor  substitute 
for  the  fishmonger’s  shop  which  had  held  the 
site,  and  was  immortalised  in  one  of  his 
lithographs. 


9* 


WHISTLER 


He  did  not  take  any  delight  in  the  really 
typical  forms  of  a great  modern  city — the  rail- 
ways, the  monstrous  abortions  of  hotels,  the 
dismal  iron  bridges,  the  trams  with  their  drab 
loads,  the  offensive  posters,  which  with  the 
shop  windows  supply  with  kaleidoscopic 
rapidity,  and  in  chaotic  confusion,  the  only 
colour ; the  distorted  and  pretensious  architec- 
ture, which  apes  the  old,  whose  destruction  it 
has  caused — all  this  was  no  more  congenial  to 
him  than  to  Ruskin.  He  did  occasionally 
touch  the  fringe  of  the  horrible  London  of  our 
time,  but  only  in  very  slight  sketches  in  litho- 
graph— Charing  Cross  Railway  Bridge,  the 
Savoy,  Gaiety  Theatre,  where  one  line  more 
would  have  betrayed  the  hideousness  of  his 
subject. 

Surprise  and  regret  has  been  expressed  that 
he  never  again  attempted  a view  of  London 
as  complete  and  perfect  as  the  Old  Battersea 
Bridge  of  Mr  Davis.  Perhaps  the  reason  lay, 
not  at  all  in  indolence  or  oddity,  but  because 
London  was  becoming  so  hideous  that  it  was 
only  tolerable  at  night. 

Again  and  again  he  painted,  drew,  and  etched 
this  delightful  structure,  worthy  of  the  brush 

92 


WHISTLER 


of  Hiroshige,  with  all  the  care  and  love  of 
which  he  was  capable,  and  his  neglect  of  other 
views  of  London  is  surely  not  surprising.  Like 
all  really  great  artists,  wherever  he  went  he 
chose  as  subjects  the  obviously  picturesque 
views  that  every  amateur  would  seize  upon 
first,  and  was  not  to  be  diverted  by  any  con- 
sideration of  their  staleness.  Many  painters 
in  our  times  are  so  afraid  of  being  taken  for 
amateurs  that  they  are  careful  to  distinguish 
themselves  by  selecting  subjects  and  points  of 
view  that  are  intrinsically  and  radically  ugly. 

Whistler  knew  perfectly  well  that  his  own 
vision  and  personality  was  quite  sufficient  for 
new  interpretation  of  a subject,  however  hack- 
neyed. We  have  only  to  look  at  his  pictures 
of  Venice,  Venice  which  had  been  the  most 
favourite  home  of  painters  from  the  time 
of  Bellini,  to  recognise  this.  It  is  not  the 
Venice  of  Bellini  or  Canaletto,  Guardi  or 
Turner,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  is  it  the  Venice 
of  a maiden’s  fancy. 

It  is  Whistler’s  Venice,  a living,  breathing, 
moving  city,  whilst  his  London  has  something 
exotic,  egregious,  decaying,  or  dead. 

The  quaint  sweet  and  fish  shops  of  old 

93 


WHISTLER 


Chelsea,  the  wharfs  of  Rotherhithe,  Black 
Lion  Wharf,  Old  Battersea  Bridge — these  are 
not  the  vital  organs  of  our  London,  and  we 
have  therefore  destroyed  them  all  without 
compunction. 

Whistler’s  London  is  as  dead  as  Hogarth’s, 
and  its  beauty  is  disappearing  so  fast  that  not 
even  another  Whistler  could  find  interest  in  it. 

However,  the  London  of  the  years  1857  to 
1890  is  permanently  recorded,  and  recorded 
by  Whistler  alone.  In  this  epoch,  when 
pictorial  art  is  rapidly  dancing  away  to  per- 
dition, with  costumery  and  Wardour  Street 
tomfoolery,  archaistic  affectations,  literary 
futilities,  and  pretentious  nightmares,  we  have 
entirely  forgotten  that  the  first  essential  in  a 
work  of  pictorial  art  is  that  it  should  be  a 
document.  We  know  from  Gentile  Bellini’s 
Relic  of  the  Cross,  how  his  contemporaries 
looked,  what  they  wore,  what  houses  they 
lived  in,  and  so  it  is  ever  through  the  ages  : 
from  Rembrandt  as  from  Carpaccio,  from 
Durer  as  from  Velasquez,  from  Canaletto  as 
from  Turner,  we  get  the  most  illuminating 
document  of  the  past  that  could  have  been 
handed  down. 


94 


Etching 
THE  RIVA.  (i 


WHISTLER 


And  this  documentary  value  of  the  art  of 
the  past  is  actually  our  treasure  in  spite  of 
the  fact  that  for  centuries  art,  being  the 
handmaid  of  the  Church,  was  bound  to  certain 
conventions  and  traditions,  and  broke  with 
them  only  with  trepidation  and  peril  in 
insidious  ways,  and  by  steps  that  are  almost 
imperceptible. 

Yet  in  our  time,  so  licentiously  free,  there  is 
almost  nothing  in  English  art  of  any  docu- 
mentary value  whatever.  The  future  student  will 
gather  one  side  of  immense  value  in  its  partial 
way  from  Charles  Keene,  but  of  art  which  is 
at  once  interpretive  and  documentary,  with 
this  exception,  almost  nothing.  No  doubt 
there  will  be  a vast  number  of  documents 
in  faithful,  humble  transcripts  from  life,  but 
these,  being  as  little  interpretive  as  human 
hands  and  eyes  can  make  them,  will  be  almost 
on  the  level  of  coloured  photographs.  Even 
in  the  essentially  modern  field  of  landscape, 
we  have  not  only  no  names  to  put  beside  Turner 
and  Constable  and  Crome,  but  none  of  the  emin- 
ence of  De  W int,  or  W illiam  M idler.  In  Germany, 
Menzel,  and  in  France,  Monet  and  Degas,  to 
name  only  two  painters,  are  undoubtedly  to  be 

wg  97 


WHISTLER 


counted  among  the  great  men,  although  the 
interpretative  element  in  Monet  is  of  the 
slightest.  But  what  documentary  value  is  to 
be  found  in  Burne  Jones,  Rossetti,  Madox 
Brown,  Holman  Hunt, Leighton,  AlmaTadema, 
or  their  successors  in  the  Academy  and  else- 
where ? In  portraits  alone  there  is  inevitably 
something  memorable,  and  Orchardson,  Sargent, 
and  several  others  will  have  their  niche. 
Watts,  of  course,  as  a portrait-painter  stands 
apart,  and  his  unfortunately  rare  masterpieces 
will  rank  with  Reynolds  and  Gainsborough. 

To  quote  Ruskin  once  more,  “All  classi- 
cality,  all  middle-age  patent  reviving,  is  utterly 
vain  and  absurd ; if  we  are  to  do  anything 
great,  good,  awful,  religious,  it  must  be  got 
out  of  our  own  little  island,  and  out  of  these 
very  times,  railroads  and  all.” 

Mr  Wedmore,  in  his  “ Whistler  and  Others,” 
echoes  this  opinion  in  words  that  are  worthy 
of  quotation : — 

“ More  to  Whistler  than  to  any  one  else 
who  has  worked  with  brush  and  needle,  do 
we  owe  that  complete  acceptance  of  modern 
life,  of  the  modern  world,  of  all  that  is  mis- 
called its  ugliness,  of  its  aspects  of  every  day, 

98 


Etching 

UPRIGHT  VENICE.  (W.  172) 


WHISTLER 


which  complete  acceptance,  remember,  whether 
in  pictorial  art  or  the  art  that  is  literature,  is 
the  most  salient  characteristic  of  the  best 
workers  of  our  time.  Whistler,  with  a nature 
essentially  aristocratic — knowing  well,  in  the 
depths  of  his  being,  that  art  of  any  kind  and 
the  f man  in  the  street  ’ have  nothing  in 
common  : that  what  is  called  the  f plain  man  * 
and  art  are  for  ever  divided — yet  accepted  the 
very  things  which  seem  most  commonplace  to 
commonplace  people,  and  showed  us  their 
interest. 

“ So  great  an  artist — the  fantastic  beauty  of 
Venice  and  the  scaffolding  of  the  f Savoy,’ 
appealed  to  him  together.  The  dome  of  the 
Pantheon,  the  Renaissance  towers  of  Loches, 
a Cubitt-built  house  in  Pimlico,  the  candle 
works  over  the  river — they  were  all  his 
material.” 


IOI 


VIII 

Technique 

Whistler’s  technique  was  of  the  most  simple. 
Some  of  the  early  canvases,  At  the  Piano, 
The  Last  of  Old  Westminster , were  probably  the 
usual  full  primed  canvas  of  the  colourman, 
of  a light  key,  and  unprepared.  Later  on,  he 
preferred  a canvas  specially  prepared,  rather 
rougher  in  texture,  and  nearly  always  in  some 
tone,  usually  a grey.  Some  of  these  canvases 
were  unnecessarily  rough,  and  disturbed,  by 
the  unevenness  of  their  texture,  the  suavity 
of  his  brushwork.  At  one  time  he  used  brushes 
nearly  three  feet  long,  which  necessitated  a 
very  fluid  medium. 

His  practice  was,  in  starting  a portrait,  to 
spend  a considerable  time  in  matching  the 
tones.  His  palette  was  the  top  of  an  oblong 
table,  on  which  he  could  with  ease  manipulate 
these  tones.  When  they  had  been  definitively 


102 


WHISTLER 


settled,  he  would  start  the  picture  at  once 
without  preparation.  At  the  end  of  the  sitting 
he  took  up  what  was  left  of  them  with  the 
palette  knife,  and  placed  them  in  a saucer  or 
dish  filled  with  water,  so  that  on  the  next  day 
he  was  ready  to  resume  them. 

As  he  was  constantly  engaged  in  the  same 
work  from  one  day  to  the  next,  he  was  obliged 
to  use  extreme  caution  in  the  manipulation,  so 
as  not  to  “ embarrass  the  canvas,”  as  his  phrase 
was ; and  his  use  of  the  full  palette  from  the 
very  beginning,  including  slow-drying  colours 
like  ivory  black  and  rose  madder,  was  a source 
of  endless  difficulties  and  interruptions.  This 
is  not  a treatise  on  the  principles  of  oil  painting, 
so  I need  merely  point  out  that  Whistler’s 
method  was  unsuited  to  the  painting  of  large 
pictures  necessitating  many  sittings.  It  was 
a “ premier-coup  ” method,  the  picture  being 
practically  repainted  at  every  sitting.  At 
some  stage,  about  the  third  or  fourth  sitting, 
the  tones  had  all  “sunk  in,”  and  since  at 
every  stage  it  was  necessary  that  the  painter 
should  see  what  had  been  done,  he  was  obliged 
to  “ oil  out.”  If  this  surface  oil  was  not  wiped 
off,  it  would  run  down  the  canvas,  as  might  be 
I03 


WHISTLER 


seen  in  the  first  stage  of  Irving’s  portrait,  and 
if  it  were  wiped,  a large  proportion  of  the 
previous  painting  was  wiped  off  with  it.  Each 
stage  was  not,  as  it  should  be,  a preparation 
for  the  final  one,  but  an  attempt  at  a final 
painting,  and,  so  far  as  it  failed,  a bad  prepara- 
tion for  the  next. 

A rule  that  was  invariably  observed  by 
methodical  painters  in  the  past  was  that  the 
definitive  true  colours  were  stated  once  and 
finally,  being  never  repeated. 

Whistler  repeated  the  same  tones  over 
and  over  again,  each  coat  in  the  most  success- 
ful canvases  approaching  nearer  to  the 
definitive  tone,  but  by  their  repetition  tend- 
ing to  make  the  quality  duller  and  flatter, 
and  without  sparkle  or  inner  glow.  His 
difficulties,  moreover,  were  greatly  enhanced 
by  his  extremely  modern  eye  for  the  cool 
tones,  blacks,  greys,  purples,  lilacs,  etc.  It  is 
notorious  that  cool  tones  should  be  prepared 
in  a relatively  warm  dead-colouring. 

It  is  quite  wonderful  to  me  that  in  spite  of 
his  neglect  of  these  rudimentary  laws,  Whistler 
so  often  “ pulled  off”  masterpieces.  The  ex- 
planation, so  far  as  any  explanation  is  possible, 
I04 


Etching 

NOCTURNE,  DANCE  HOUSE.  (JV.  268) 


WHISTLER 


is  that  the  successes  were  really  of  the  nature 
of  “ premier  coup”  pictures,  the  under  paint- 
ings, or  “pot  shots,”  being  almost  negligible. 
Sometimes  the  final  qualities  were  happy 
accidents.  He  constantly  scraped  down  the 
last  painting  with  the  palette  knife,  so  as  not 
to  “embarrass  the  canvas,”  and  the  dress  of 
the  Miss  Alexander  was  so  scraped,  with  the 
intention  of  continuing  at  another  sitting. 
The  result,  however,  was  so  satisfactory  that 
it  was  thus  left.  It  is  obvious  that  this  un- 
methodical way  of  setting  about  a portrait 
must  lead  to  many  absolute  failures.  It 
required  a devotion  and  energy  on  the  part 
of  the  sitter  hardly  less  concentrated  than  that 
of  the  artist,  since  every  time  the  brush  was 
laid  to  canvas,  the  picture  was  repainted  from 
top  to  bottom.  Such  devotion  is  rare,  and  it 
is  quite  unreasonable  to  expect  it  from  the 
kind  of  ladies  or  gentlemen  who  give  com- 
missions for  portraits  as  they  would  for  a suit 
of  clothes. 

And  it  was  with  such  persons  as  these,  we 
must  remember,  that  Vandyck,  Reynolds,  and 
Gainsborough  made  their  great  successes. 
Whistler  may  be  called  a realist  in  the  sense 
107 


WHISTLER 


that  his  idealism  was  unconscious,  and  that 
he  required  the  stimulus  of  nature  actually 
present  and  insistent.  He  felt  acutely  the 
inter-dependence  of  all  the  elements  in  a 
picture,  and  this  acute  conviction,  so  typical 
of  our  period,  made  it  immensely  difficult  for 
him  to  abstract  one  element  in  the  picture, 
the  background  for  instance,  and  deliberately 
alter  it  in  accordance  with  some  preference  of 
his  own.  Gainsborough  could  do  this,  and 
Reynolds,  and  while  we  recognise  the  con- 
vention, we  are  not  aware,  as  we  should  be 
with  a modern,  of  affectation  or  absurdity. 
But  conventions  in  Whistler’s  hands  would 
have  resulted  in  sheer  nonsense.  Although 
the  Nocturnes  were  necessarily  not  painted 
direct  from  nature,  the  principle  was  the  same 
as  in  the  portraits.  Every  stroke  of  the  brush 
is,  after  all,  achieved  by  an  effort  of  memory, 
and  in  the  case  of  the  Nocturnes,  the  memoris- 
ing was  merely  of  longer  duration.  For  some 
time  he  was  in  the  habit  of  taking  notes  in 
white  chalk  on  brown  paper  of  nocturnal 
effects ; but  as  he  became  more  adept  in  his 
art,  he  threw  even  this  aside,  and  relied 
entirely  on  memory.  One  of  his  pupils  has 
108 


Etching 

THE  EMBROIDERED  CURTAIN.  (IV.  356) 


WHISTLER 


described  to  me  his  method  of  taking  mental 
notes  of  a scene.  He  stopped  for  a long  time 
gazing  at  the  scene ; then  turning  his  back  he 
would  go  through  a category  of  the  elements, 
asking  his  companion  to  check  him  in  any 
error. 

“ There  is  a tavern  window,  three  panes 
wide  on  each  side  of  the  central  partition,  and 
six  panes  deep.  On  the  left  side  is  a red 
curtain  half  drawn,  starting  from  the  third 
pane  from  the  left,  crossing  to  the  second 
below  and  down  to  the  bottom  about  half-way 
across  the  first  panes.  Behind  this  curtain  is  a 
light,  in  the  second  pane  from  the  left  of  the 
second  row.  This  light  illuminates  the  whole 
window,  except  where  there  is  a dark  mass 
near  the  bottom  on  the  right,  probably  a table, 
which  obscures  it.  The  wall  of  the  house  is 
really  white,  but  appears  a dark  blue  grey  in 
the  moonlight.  A street  lamp,  which  is  to  be 
out  of  the  picture,  casts  a shadow,  very  dark  at 
the  top,  but  broken  of  course  by  the  illuminated 
window,  and,  where  it  is  discernible  below  the 
sill,  extremely  faint. 

“ To  the  right  of  the  window,  at  the  height  of 
the  second  pane,  is  a door,  open,  with  a gleam  of 


WHISTLER 


light  across  the  sill  from  the  room.  The  tone 
of  the  roof  is  darker  than  that  of  the  wall,  but 
is  warm  in  colour,  and  precisely  the  same  in 
value  as  the  sky  beyond  it,  which  is  a deep 
blue  grey  . . .”  and  so  forth. 

Then  when  all  the  errors  had  been  cor- 
rected, he  would  turn  round  and  take  another 
long  mental  note  ; after  which  he  walked  back 
to  bed,  asking  his  companion  not  to  speak  to  * 
him,  so  that  he  might  keep  his  impression  fresh. 
Next  morning,  since  he  never  permitted  more 
than  twelve  hours’  interval  to  elapse,  he  began 
the  picture,  and  in  the  evening  returned  for  the 
purpose  of  making  more  notes  and  correcting 
his  first  impression.  It  is  clear  that  this 
method  of  painting  is  simply  painting  from 
nature,  the  only  difference  being  a longer 
interval  between  observation  and  execution. 

Although,  as  I have  stated,  there  were  few 
technical  secrets  in  Whistler’s  methods,  I 
think  I can  descry  one  which  is  peculiar 
enough  to  be  interesting.  It  is  a known  law 
that  a tint  appears  colder  or  warmer  than  the 
normal,  according  as  it  is  laid  on  a relatively 
darker  or  lighter  ground.  In  some  of  the 
nocturnes,  dark  as  the  sky  is,  it  is,  I believe, 


WHISTLER 


yet  lighter  than  the  ground  on  which  it  was 
painted,  which  is  practically  a warm  black. 
By  this  means  he  avoided  the  use  of  a positive 
blue,  and  gave  that  peculiar  milky  baffling 
colour  to  the  skies,  which  is  neither  grey  nor 
blue  nor  any  definable  colour,  but  just  the 
colour  of  night.  The  dark  ground  is  very 
perceptible  in  the  pier  of  Valparaiso  Bay , and 
in  the  painting  of  the  white  coat  in  his  own 
portrait. 


w H 


u3 


Whistler  as  an  Etcher 


Whistler’s  etchings  were,  from  the  date  of 
their  first  exhibition  in  the  Royal  Academy, 
recognised  as  the  works  of  a master  in  line.  The 
“ Little  French  set  ” of  thirteen  etchings  were 
published  in  1858.  Here  we  find,  in  La  Vieille 
aux  Loqaes,  La  Marchande  de  Moutarde,  Street  at 
Saverne , the  traditional  technique  which  had 
come  down  from  Rembrandt  through  the  great 
French  etchers  Meryon  and  others.  But  in 
these,  as  also  later  in  the  Thames  set,  whilst 
we  recognise  Whistler  in  the  unerring  sense  of 
composition,  the  delicacy  and  precision  of  the 
line,  the  boldness  and  sincerity  of  expression, 
yet  the  personal  note,  the  interpretation  of 
Nature  which  is  so  peculiar  to  him,  is  still  in 
abeyance. 

The  Unsafe  Tenement  is  a splendid  etching, 
in  unfaltering  decision  of  line  and  in  grand 

“4 


Etching 

JO’S  BENT  HEAD 


WHISTLER 


massing  of  light  and  shade  which  has  not 
destroyed  the  Dutch-like  finish  of  parts,  such 
as  the  stable-fork  with  its  shadow  thrown  on 
the  wall. 

The  many  admirers  of  Whistler’s  etchings 
have  broadly  separated  into  two  classes,  those 
who  prefer  the  earlier  work  of  the  Thames  and 
French  periods,  and  those  to  whom  the  later 
Venetian  and  Dutch  prints  yield  a more 
intimate  appeal.  It  would  be  idle,  it  seems  to 
me,  to  attempt  any  analysis  which  should 
conclude  the  superiority  of  one  class  of  work  to 
the  detriment  of  the  other.  That  is  the  rock 
on  which  so  many  art  critics,  including  one  of 
the  greatest,  if  not  the  greatest,  Ruskin,  have 
often  come  to  grief.  More  profitable  would  be 
an  attempt  to  analyse  their  peculiar  beauties, 
and  to  show  if  possible  merely  the  difference 
between  the  points  of  view.  For  there  is  a 
difference,  and  it  is  much  more  marked  than 
the  earliest  and  latest  styles  of  Whistler  as  a 
painter.  In  the  earlier  work  it  is  evident  that 
Whistler,  when  the  needle  was  in  his  hand, 
still  regarded  Nature  in  terms  of  outline. 
Such  an  etching  as  the  famous  Blac  Lion 
Wharf  may  be  roughly  termed  a map  or  plan 

ii  7 


WHISTLER 


of  the  aspect,  filled  in  with  indications  of  the 
various  textures  and  surfaces.  From  one  end 
of  the  plate  to  the  other  everything  is  ex- 
haustively treated,  with  the  minute  and  literal 
exactness  of  the  most  unflinching  Pre- 
Raphaelite.  Wherever  there  is  not  anything 
precise  and  definite  to  be  stated,  a crane,  a 
post,  the  mast  of  a ship,  the  paper  is  virgin. 
There  is  almost  none  of  that  palpitating 
mystery  out  of  which  the  salient  facts  emerge 
which  we  associate  with  Whistler’s  later  works, 
and  which  is  life.  And  much  of  what  un- 
intelligent persons  call  detail,  the  filling  in  of 
spaces,  is  pure  convention,  quite  thoughtless 
and  quite  untrue  to  Nature,  although  charming 
in  its  way. 

Take  the  tiled  roof  on  the  left,  the  beams 
of  the  house  immediately  to  its  right  and  of 
that  on  the  right-hand  corner,  or  the  steps 
going  down  to  the  river. 

Or  take  the  bricks  on  the  right  of  another, 
and  a magnificent,  plate  of  the  Thames  set, 
the  Rotherhithe. 

It  is  misleading  to  say  in  these  cases, 
every  tile  on  that  roof,  every  beam  in  that 
house  has  been  drawn.  These  details  are 
1 1 8 


WHISTLER 


merely  filled  in  with  a certain  number  of 
strokes  of  a certain  shape,  accepted  as  indicat- 
ing the  materials  of  which  they  are  constructed. 

Compare  now  the  Palaces  of  the  Venetian 
period. 

Here  the  detail  is  very  rich,  the  doorways, 
the  arches,  the  tiled  roof,  the  fluttering 
gondolas.  But  by  this  time  Whistler  no  longer 
thought  of  Nature  in  terms  of  outlines  to  be 
filled  in  with  detail.  While  convention  has 
not  been  quite  abandoned,  as  in  monochrome 
work  it  can  never  be,  yet  it  is  so  subtly  hidden, 
so  adroitly  manipulated,  that  the  first  im- 
pression of  the  plate  is  its  vivid  truth.  Or, 
for  a still  better  example,  take  the  Doorway. 
In  the  two  flanking  arches  there  is  an  immense 
amount  of  detail  as  well  as  in  the  rich  orna- 
ment of  their  pillars.  Yet  whilst  we  feel 
conscious  of  line,  close  study  finds  that 
actual  outline  is  almost  absent,  and  that  the 
effect  has  been  obtained  with  a cunning  use 
of  hatched  tone.  Every  diamond-shaped 
window  has  its  own  character  and  there  is  no 
repetition  of  a pattern.  The  lights  emerge 
and  disappear  with  the  arbitrary  and  fitful 
character  of  Nature,  and  only  the  closest  and 

119 


WHISTLER 


most  reverent  copying  of  Nature  could  have 
caught  this  mystery  and  infinity.  Wherever 
in  the  early  etchings  figures  or  details  are  in- 
troduced in  a slighter  manner,  as  in  the  barge 
with  two  men  rowing  in  the  right  of  Blue  Lion 
Wharf,  these  are  sudden  and  arbitrary  ex- 
cursions into  indefiniteness,  and  merely  in- 
dicate that  the  figures  were  in  motion.  But 
the  later  etchings  which  deal  with  large 
pieces,  like  the  Riva,  are  illustrations  of 
scientific  truths  which  Ruskin  was  the  first  to 
elucidate.  After  Turner,  Whistler  was  the  first 
great  artist  to  illustrate  these  truths,  and 
between  them  came  all  the  Pre-Raphaelite 
school,  of  which  Ruskin  became  the  ardent 
champion.  It  is  curious  that  this  interlude 
should  have  blinded  Ruskin  to  the  fact  that 
Whistler  was  carrying  out  the  principles  of 
Turner  as  expressed  in  his  own  “ Modern 
Painters.”  Thatadmirable  Chapter  iv.  ofVol.  i. 
is  such  a perfect  exposition  of  Whistler’s 
methods  that  I cannot  do  better  than  quote 
from  it.  It  deals  with  truths  of  space,  first, 
as  dependent  on  the  focus  of  the  eye,  and 
second,  as  dependent  on  the  power  of  the  eye. 
With  binocular  vision,  “it  is  impossible  to  see 
120 


Lithograph 

MOTHER  AND  CHILD 


WHISTLER 


objects  at  unequal  distances  distinctly  at  one 
moment,  especially  such  as  are  both  com- 
paratively near.  Either  the  foreground  or  the 
distance  must  be  partially  sacrificed,  which, 
not  being  done  by  the  Old  Masters,  they 
could  not  express  space.  This  incapacity  of  the 
eye  must  not  be  confounded  with  its  incap- 
ability to  comprehend  a large  portion  of 
lateral  space  at  once.  We  indeed  can  see  at 
one  moment  little  more  than  one  point,  the 
objects  beside  it  being  confused  and  indistinct, 
but  we  need  pay  no  attention  to  this  in  art, 
because  we  can  see  just  as  little  of  the  picture 
as  we  can  of  the  landscape  without  turning 
the  eye ; hence  any  slurring  or  confusing  of 
one  part  of  it  laterally  more  than  another  is 
not  founded  on  any  truth  of  Nature,  but  is  an 
expedient  of  the  artist — and  often  an  excellent 
and  desirable  one — to  make  the  eye  rest 
where  he  wishes  it.  But  as  the  touch  ex- 
pressive of  a distant  object  is  as  near  upon  the 
canvas  as  that  expressive  of  a near  one,  both 
are  seen  distinctly  and  with  the  same  focus 
of  eye ; and  hence  an  immediate  contra- 
diction of  nature  results,  unless  one  or  other 
be  given  with  an  artificial  or  increased  indis- 

I23 


WHISTLER 


tinctness,  expressive  of  the  appearance  due  to 
the  unadapted  focus.”  It  had  always  been 
the  custom  of  the  artists  who  succeeded  the 
Primitives  to  subordinate  the  background  to 
the  foreground.  “ Turner  introduced  a new  era 
in  landscape  art  by  showing  that  the  fore- 
ground might  be  sunk  for  the  distance,  that  it 
was  possible  to  express  immediate  proximity  to 
the  spectator  without  giving  anything  like  com- 
pleteness to  the  focus  of  the  near  objects. 
This,  observe,  is  not  done  by  slurred  or  soft 
lines  (always  the  sign  of  vice  in  art),  but  by 
a decisive  imperfection,  a firm  but  partial 
assertion  of  form,  which  the  eye  feels  indeed 
to  be  close  home  to  it,  and  yet  cannot  rest 
upon,  nor  cling  to,  nor  entirely  understand, 
and  from  which  it  is  driven  away  of  necessity 
to  those  parts  of  distance  in  which  it  is  in- 
tended to  repose.”  No  better  demonstration 
of  these  principles,  expressed  with  Ruskin’s 
admirable  clearness,  can  be  found  than  in  the 
later  plates  of  Whistler.  Upright  Venice,  The 
Riva  have  their  centres  of  interest,  on  which 
the  eye  lingers,  in  the  far  distance,  the  fore- 
ground beinff  treated  with  extreme  breadth 
and  simplicity. 


124 


Lithograph 
MISS  WILLIAMS 


WHISTLER 


Even  more  striking  is  the  illustration  of 
Chapter  v.  on  the  truths  of  space,  as  dependent 
on  the  power  of  the  eye. 

“ What  I particularly  wish  to  insist  upon  is 
the  state  of  vision  in  which  all  the  details  of 
an  object  are  seen,  and  yet  seen  in  such  con- 
fusion and  disorder  that  we  cannot  in  the 
least  tell  what  they  are  or  what  they  mean. 
It  is  not  mist  between  us  and  the  object, 
still  less  is  it  shade,  still  less  is  it  want  of 
character ; it  is  a confusion,  a mystery,  an 
interfering  of  undecided  lines  with  each 
other,  not  a diminution  of  their  number, 
window  and  door,  architrave  and  frieze,  all 
are  there,  it  is  no  cold  and  vacant  mass,  it 
is  full  and  rich  and  abundant,  and  yet  you 
cannot  see  a single  form  so  as  to  know  what 
it  is. 

“ Go  to  the  top  of  Highgate  Hill  on  a clear 
summer  morning  at  five  o’clock  (N.B.  Ruskin 
lived  at  Highgate  at  this  date)  and  look  at 
Westminster  Abbey.  You  will  receive  an  im- 
pression of  a building  enriched  with  multi- 
tudinous vertical  lines.  Try  to  distinguish 
one  of  these  lines  all  the  way  down  from  the 
one  next  to  it.  You  cannot.  Try  to  count 
127 


WHISTLER 


them.  You  cannot.  Look  at  it  generally, 
and  it  is  all  symmetry  and  arrangement.  Look 
at  it  in  its  parts,  and  it  is  all  inextricable 
confusion.” 

Does  not  this  perfectly  describe  an  etching 
of  Whistler’s  later  period  ? No  doubt  these 
principles  have  been  tacitly  accepted  and 
acted  upon  ever  since  Whistler  practically 
demonstrated  them,  but  it  is  well  to  draw 
attention  to  the  fact  that,  from  the  date  that 
these  chapters  were  written  during  Turner’s 
lifetime,  they  had  been,  in  England  at  least, 
in  abeyance  from  the  enormous  influence  of 
the  reactionary  Pre-Raphaelite  movement. 
It  is  to  France  we  must  turn  at  this  time  for 
those  who  consciously  or  unconsciously  were 
handing  on  the  torch  of  Turner  and  Constable. 
It  is  a matter  of  common  knowledge  that 
the  French  paysagistes,  Corot,  Daubigny, 
Rousseau  received  Constable  as  a revelation, 
and  if  Turner  was  at  first  less  admired,  it  was 
because  he  was  less  known. 

The  same  tribute  was  paid  to  Turner’s 
genius  by  the  later  French  masters,  Monet, 
Boudin,  Sisley,  those  who  definitively  assumed 
the  title  of  Impressionists.  We  may,  therefore, 
128 


WHISTLER 


conclude  that,  whilst  the  first  impetus  to 
Whistler’s  genius  was  afforded  by  contemporary 
French  painters,  especially  Courbet,  our  own 
great  masters  of  landscape  art  indirectly  had  a 
large  share  in  it. 


M 


I2g 


X 

Pastels  and  Water-Colours 

Whistler  had  used  pastels  occasionally  as 
studies  or  notes  for  portraits,  but  it  was  not 
till  187.9  in  Venice  that  he  began  to  make 
them  self-sufficient  pictures,  and  his  handling 
of  them  showed  his  remarkable  quickness  in 
seizing  at  once  upon  the  peculiar  beauties  and 
qualities  of  a new  medium. 

Since  that  date  the  vogue  of  pastel  has 
increased  with  great  rapidity,  but  very  few 
artists  have  reached  his  perfection  of  style. 

He  understood  at  once  that  as  a medium  it 
has  rigid  limitations  which  require  the  most 
exquisite  selection  of  subject  and  precision  of 
treatment.  It  is  possible,  no  doubt,  with  the 
thousands  of  different  tints  now  manufactured 
by  Lechertier  Barbe  & Edouard,  to  make  an 
exact  transcript  of  every  nuance  of  colour,  to 
paint  with  pastel  as  one  might  paint  in  oil. 

130 


THE  LITTLE  POOL 


' -J 


WHISTLER 


But  to  do  this  necessitates  an  excessive 
blending  and  fusing  of  tint,  to  the  destruction 
of  the  peculiar  bloom  and  freshness  of  colour. 
And  the  material  being,  after  all,  a blunt  soft 
chalk,  becomes  clumsy  and  heavy-handed  if 
all  conventions  are  discarded.  Whistler’s 
pastels  are  essentially  drawings  with  coloured 
chalks,  the  number  of  tints  now  supplied 
merely  giving  him  a greater  range  than 
Gainsborough  or  Russell,  but  not  causing  him 
to  break  with  tradition. 

The  groundwork  of  Whistler’s  pastel  was 
the  outline  drawing  in  charcoal,  brown  or 
black  chalk.  Then  having  selected  a few 
pastels,  one  for  sky,  one  for  water,  and  perhaps 
a dozen  more,  as  near  to  the  true  tint  as  is 
possible  to  be  found  in  a single  stick  of  colour, 
he  would  not  confuse  this  selection  by  any 
afterthought  or  disturbance  of  its  purity.  His 
great  skill  and  taste  is  chiefly  seen  in  the 
cunning  with  which  he  would  make  delicate 
gradations  of  tone  by  pressing  more  or  less 
heavily  on  the  brown  paper.  Thus  he  would 
drag  a pale  colour  lightly  for  the  sky,  and  obtain 
more  brilliant  touches  near  the  horizon  by 
working  these  portions  over  again  or  pressing 

T33 


WHISTLER 


harder,  thus  obliterating  the  dark  ground  in  a 
very  few  minute  portions. 

In  the  main,  the  brown  ground  remained 
visible  throughout.  It  is  astonishing  how, 
with  these  severe  limitations,  each  of  his  pastels 
appears  as  a brilliant  note  of  pure  colour,  gay, 
spontaneous,  blooming,  and  all  the  while  the 
conventions  of  the  Old  Masters  who  drew  in 
three  colours,  black,  red,  and  white,  are  still 
traceable.  Whistler  selected  a few  notes  from 
a very  extended  keyboard,  that  is  all  the 
difference.  It  is  possible  to  analyse  his  method 
in  pastel ; it  is  impossible  to  suggest  the  beauty 
of  the  results. 


*34 


XI 

Decoration 

Whilst  Whistler’s  grasp  of  decorative  qualities 
is  manifest  in  every  stroke  of  his  brushy  it  is 
true  that  only  in  one  important  work  did  he 
dispense  with  the  stimulus  of  Nature  actually 
present  and  insistent.  All  the  more  remark- 
able therefore  is  that  achievement  of  the 
Peacock  Room. 

Some  study  of  the  actual  “ noble  bird  with 
wings  expanded  ’ ’ may  have  had  a part  in  the 
final  result,  but  the  gorgeous  extravagance  of 
the  panels  is  partly  Whistler  and  partly 
Japanese.  As  filling  of  space  with  the  most 
intricate  and  satisfying  pattern,  it  is  un- 
approachable in  modern  times. 

It  is  evident  from  the  Peacock  Room  that 
Whistler  had  what  otherwise  might  have  been 
denied  him,  imagination.  But  it  was  imagina- 
tion of  the  most  abstract  kind,  being  occupied 

J35 


WHISTLER 


almost  purely  with  shapes,  spaces,  and  propor- 
tions, and  having  but  slight  relation  with 
Nature,  memory,  or  the  work  of  former  artists. 

It  is  a matter  of  profound  regret  that  this 
was  the  only  example  of  pure  decoration  that 
he  was  commissioned  to  do.  It  may  be  that 
Whistler’s  behaviour  towards  his  patron  Leyland, 
characterised  by  his  usual  disregard  of  finances, 
to  use  no  harsher  term,  accounted  for  the  fact 
The  room,  which  was  bodily  taken  down  and 
exhibited  at  Messrs  Obach  in  1904,  went  to 
an  American  collector,  like  so  many  others 
of  his  works.  But  since  Mr  Freer  was  already 
the  possessor  of  La  princesse  du  pays  de  la 
porcelaine,  we  cannot  grudge  him  The  Peacock 
Room , which  was  designed  as  a setting  for  the 
picture. 


136 


Lithograph 
THE  HOROSCOPE 


XII 

Catalogue  of  Oil  Pictures 

It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  a catalogue  of 
Whistler’s  oil  pictures  can  be  as  yet  drawn  up, 
both  complete  and  correct.  I have  not 
attempted  to  make  it  complete,  as  the  inclusion 
of  all  the  slighter  works,  the  “ Notes, 
Harmonies,  Caprices,”  etc.,  would  swell  the 
book  disproportionately.  By  omitting  to  do 
this,  I hope  I have  not  fallen  under  the  ban 
issued  against  “ Atlas  ” in  the  “Gentle  Art,” 
where  Whistler  informs  the  critic  that  “an 
etching  does  not  depend  for  its  importance 
upon  its  size.” 

For  though  this  is  eminently  true  of  etchings, 
and  Whistler  was  a consistent  champion  of  the 
dictum,  it  is  not  such  a patent  truth  in  oil 
painting. 

Some  of  his  most  exquisite  panels,  it  is  true, 
were  on  a small  scale — who  that  saw  it  can 

139 


WHISTLER 


ever  forget  the  tiny  panel  of  the  Beach  at 
Dieppe,  4j  by  8 inches,  belonging  to  Mr 
Douglas  Freshfield  ? — nevertheless  I have  not 
included  several  equally  good,  chiefly  for 
reasons  of  space,  but  also  because  in  most  cases 
a compiler  is  unable  to  state  particulars  as  to 
ownership,  exhibition,  dimensions,  etc.,  and 
there  seems,  therefore,  little  point  in  stating 
that  a Pink  Note  was  No.  23  at  Messrs 
Dowdeswell’s  in  May  1884,  if  that  is  all  that 
can  be  asserted  of  the  picture. 

On  the  other  hand,  J have  endeavoured  to 
avoid  the  pitfall  of  the  gentleman  who  “ never 
would  ask,  he  liked  his  pot-shots  at  things.” 

I have  consulted  all  the  catalogues  available, 
and  made  inquiries  from  all  quarters  likely  to 
be  of  service,  yet  I am  sure  that  my  list  is  not 
only  incomplete,  but  incorrect  as  well.  Whistler 
hampered  the  work  of  cataloguing  enormously 
by  his  system  of  nomenclature. 

Five  Nocturnes  in  Blue  and  Silver  were 
exhibited  in  the  Grosvenor  Gallery  alone. 
Not  only  does  such  a system  create  difficulty, 
even  consistently  carried  out,  but  Whistler  was 
quite  careless  about  the  titles,  and  frequently 
altered  them. 


WHISTLER 


Thus  the  Nocturne  in  Blue  and  Silver  of 
W.  Graham  is  called  Nocturne  in  Blue  and 
Gold  in  1892. 

The  portrait  of  Carlyle  is  called  Arrange- 
ment in  Brown  in  1877,  and  Arrangement  in 
Grey  and  Black  in  1892.  The  Nocturne  in 
Blue  and  Gold , Westminster , of  1877  becomes 
Grey  and  Gold  in  1 892,  which  has  been 
again  altered  in  the  Memorial  Exhibition  to 
Blue  and  Silver. 

The  portrait  of  Lady  Meux,  which  was  a 
Harmony  in  Flesh  Colour  and  Pink  in  1882, 
becomes  Pink  and  Grey  in  1892. 

It  need  scarcely  be  pointed  out  that  such 
alterations  made  by  the  artist  himself  stultify 
the  whole  idea,  and  prove  that  the  analogy 
with  music  does  not  hold  consistently. 

Any  musician  would  tell  us  that  we  could 
not  change  the  title  of  Symphony  in  C minor 
to  Sonata  in  G major  without  making  it  an 
absurdity.  And  therefore  if  it  is  a matter  of 
indifference  whether  we  call  a picture  Nocturne 
in  Blue  and  Silver  or  in  Blue  and  Gold,  some 
other  title  would  seem  more  reasonable.  One 
may  well  ask,  however,  what  other  title  would 
be  appropriate  and  long  pause  for  a reply,  like 

X4X 


WHISTLER 


the  man  who,  when  asked  why  a particular 
form  of  ball  in  cricket  was  called  a Yorker, 
stunned  his  inquirer  with  another  question, 
“ What  else  would  you  call  it  ? ” An  instance 
of  the  Nemesis  that  has  overtaken  Whistler, 
which  he  would  have  appreciated  with  a 
twinkle,  is  to  be  found  in  No.  38  at  the  New 
Gallery,  1905.  The  illustrated  catalogue 
states  that  this  picture  was  exhibited  at  the 
Grosvenor  Gallery  in  1878,  evidently  basing 
this  assertion  on  the  fact  that  a picture  entitled 
Nocturne  in  Grey  and  Gold  was  No.  57  in  that 
year.  But  if  we  turn  to  the  “ Gentle  Art  ” we 
find  on  p.  126  the  famous  “ Red  Rag  ” of  May 
22,  1878,  in  “ The  World”  : “My  picture  of  a 
Harmony  in  Grey  and  Gold  is  an  illustration  of 
my  meaning — a snow  scene  with  a single 
black  figure  and  a lighted  tavern.  I care 
nothing  for  the  past,  present,  or  future  of  the 
black  figure,  placed  there  because  the  black 
was  wanted  at  that  spot ; all  that  I know  is 
that  my  combination  of  grey  and  gold  is  the 
basis  of  the  picture.  Now  this  is  precisely 
what  my  friends  cannot  grasp.  They  say, 
e Why  not  call  it  “Trotty  Veck,”  and  sell  it  for 
a round  harmony  of  golden  guineas  ? ’ ” 

I42 


HARMONY  IN  GOLD  AND  BROWN 
Pastel 

( By  permission  of  Pickford  Waller,  Esq.') 


WHISTLER 


If  Whistler  had  entitled  No.  57  at  the 
Grosvenor  in  1878  “Trotty  Veck,”  the 
catalogue  of  the  Memorial  Exhibition  would 
not  have  fallen  into  the  error  of  stating  that 
the  Arrangement  in  Grey  and  Gold,  Nocturne, 
Battersea  Bridge,  was  the  picture  in  question. 
It  may  be  that  the  Moonlight  Sonata  or  the 
Chapeau  de  Faille  are  not  correct  titles  for  the 
works  to  which  they  are  popularly  applied,  but 
that  is  a matter  of  small  consequence,  and  a 
distracted  compiler  may  be  excused  for  a 
hearty  wish  that  some  effective  system  had 
been  adopted.  Sir  Laurence  Alma  Tadema, 
I believe,  numbers  his  works,  which,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  compiler,  is,  of  course, 
invaluable.  But  in  discussing  a work,  such  a 
title  as  Die  Lange  Leizen  is  more  to  the  point 
than  any  number. 

I have  ventured  to  differ  in  several  other 
points  from  the  New  Gallery  catalogue,  whilst 
acknowledging  the  improvement  in  the  revised 
and  illustrated  version.  I have  called  the 
Nocturne  of  Southampton  Water,  Black  and 
Gold,  because  that  was  the  original  title  in 
1882.  As  I do  not  suppose  that  the  alterations 
made  by  Whistler  were  due  to  any  deliberate 
wk  145 


WHISTLER 


plan,  I prefer  in  all  such  cases  to  give  the 
original  title,  merely  noting  as  in  this  case 
that  it  was  altered  in  1892  to  Blue  and  Gold. 
The  first  edition  of  the  New  Gallery  catalogue 
entitled  No.  12  Nocturne  in  Blue  and  Silver, 
subsequently  altered  to  Blue  and  Gold 
following  the  Goupil  catalogue.  I have  kept 
the  original  title.  No.  31  is  entitled  Nocturne, 
Blue  and  Green,  on  the  testimony  of  a card 
on  the  back  in  the  artist’s  handwriting  ; I have 
preferred  to  keep  the  original  title  of  the 
Grosvenor  and  Goupil’s,  Nocturne  in  Blue 
arid  Silver.  No.  36,  New  Gallery,  was  entitled 
in  1877  Nocturne  in  Blue  and  Gold,  which 
I have  therefore  maintained.  Whistler  altered 
this  in  1892  to  Grey  and  Gold,  but  there 
seems  no  justification  for  calling  it  Blue  and 
Silver,  as  the  New  Gallery  catalogue  did. 
No.  62,  New  Gallery,  is  catalogued  Nocturne 
in  Green  and  Gold,  the  Falling  Rocket. 

This  mistake  is  unaccountable,  especially 
since  it  was  pointed  out  soon  after  the  opening 
of  the  Memorial  Exhibition.  There  is,  to 
begin  with,  no  sign  of  “ a falling  rocket  and 
other  fireworks  ” (see  “ Gentle  Art,”  p.  9)  in  Mr 
Heinemann’s  Nocturne.  The  Nocturne  in 
146 


WHISTLER 


Black  and  Gold,  the  Falling  Rocket  was 
exhibited  at  the  Grosvenor  in  1877,  No.  4, 
and  at  Goupil’s,  1892,  No.  10.  It  belongs  to 
Mrs  Samuel  Untermyer,  U.S.,  and  was  lent 
by  her  to  the  Boston  Exhibition,  No.  64,  and 
to  the  Paris  Exhibition,  No.  66.  The  picture 
was  reproduced  in  photogravure  by  Mr  Eddy 
in  his  book,  p.  140,  and  finally  the  photograph 
is  to  be  found  in  the  Whistler  Portfolio 
published  by  Goupil  & Co.  in  1892.  This 
evidence  is  conclusive  against  the  New  Gallery 
catalogue. 

One  more  criticism  and  I have  done.  It  is 
stated  that  the  Blue  Wave,  Biarritz  was  “ one 
of  the  pictures  that  Whistler  painted  in 
company  with  Courbet,  when  they  worked 
together  for  one  or  two  summers  on  the  coast 
of  France.”  Now  M.  Duret  gives  a pretty  full 
account  of  Whistler’s  stoppage  at  Biarritz  on 
his  way  to  Madrid,  where  he  had  intended 
going  in  1862,  and  includes  an  interesting 
letter  to  Fantin-Latour,  but  no  mention  is 
made  of  Courbet. 

It  was  not  till  the  summers  of  1865  and 
1866  that  they  met  at  Trouville  and  painted 
in  company,  a record  of  which  is  to  be  found 

M7 


WHISTLER 


in  the  sea-piece  now  in  the  collection  of  Mrs 
J.  Gardner,  Boston,  where  Courbet  is  placed 
in  the  foreground  in  a straw  hat. 

No  doubt,  since  Whistler  first  became  known 
to  Courbet  in  1859  in  the  atelier  of  Bonvin, 
where  At  the  Piano  was  first  shown  after  its 
rejection  by  the  Salon,  his  influence  is  trace- 
able ; he  may  even  have  given  advice  and 
assistance ; but  it  is  misleading  to  say  the 
picture  was  painted  in  his  company. 

Where  the  picture  is  dated,  I have  attributed 
it  to  that  date ; in  all  other  cases  I have 
catalogued  it  according  to  the  date  of  its  first 
exhibition. 

I have  confined  my  endeavours  to  making  a 
catalogue  of  the  oils,  because  the  etchings 
have  already  been  catalogued  by  Mr  Wedmore 
and  the  lithographs  by  Mr  Way,  but  hitherto 
no  complete  catalogue  of  the  oils  has  been 
attempted.  Further  particulars  may  be  forth- 
coming as  to  certain  of  the  pictures  which  I 
have  been  unable  to  trace,  and  I shall  be 
grateful  for  any  assistance  or  correction  which 
this  endeavour  may  bring  forth. 


148 


CATALOGUE  OF  OIL  PICTURES 

BY  JAMES  MACNEILL  WHISTLER 


WHISTLER 


. w 


73 

$ S g 

o O 


Jj  GO  S3  % 

50  O 005 
d ~PPh-3  Oh 

© § O VO 
P^ooo 
S3  05  05  01  05 
hCO-hhh 


KM 


KM 


pH  .2 
„ . > 
Q.C  o3 
• - cfi  Q 

Ph  q £ 


I'g: 

33 


00  ^ 


13 

O 1e  2 


© . 

sj  e 
2.  © 
Cu  3 

T3  S 

E 2 
~ X 

© H 


O O 

;zi!z; 


^00 
. CO  ' 


o 


fl 


o S 

.13 


-P’L  ^ 
O 

0^0 


149 


WHISTLER 


ftft  fflpq  apq 


rn 

CO  —d 

[ ~ 2 .iA1 

h*hn 

»-H  ^ 

HP1 

r“H  <X) 

ss 

tdm 

ft  ft 

ft  ft 

ft  ft 

© GO 

3 9 

£ .5 

GO  GO 
CO  CO 

o o 
ftft 


•-3  a 
. ft 
•-sO 


*§ 
Ph  ft 

o 

ft 

•2h 

o . 

•c  £ 

ft  00 

oi  ft 

o'  ^ 

ft 

<N  -ft 

a 73 

geo 

CN 

^ i-H 

cd 

OO  CO 

CO 

© tq 

1-1  o 

o 

o 6 

o 

o o 

o 

© 

O 

ft 

ftft 

ft 

ftft 

ft 

«|  -ft 

^ C/2  _ 

ft  ft 

ft 

ft  ft 

ft 

ft  ft 

ft 

ft  ft  ft 

e3 

'©  5-1 

O 


d eo  t> 

IS  | 

ft  73  „ 

^ © Sh 

ft  -g  © 

o - ft 
^ flTfe 


g s 

O32  § § 

XI  oOlJS 
H 

id 


© 


73  t3 
o d 
fl  be 


o3  bC 

© C •£ 

X 


ft 

ri 

o 

73 

cS 

© 

X 


ft  -2 
© & 
73  fl 
«< 
W o 
.©H 

P 73 

d © 


c$  ft 


© H 
ft 

m !> 


2 A:  ts  g 
x)  S M © o 
Eh  © 2 fl  i5 

s ® i-^Po 

-ft  ft  ^ ft 
© M ft 
© _ ft 

GO  ft  d 1,5 

I*£Qsf 

Its^S 

^ © Sh  . X 

© fe  © ft  t> 

ft  -IS  ft  X-> 


i SO 


WHISTLER 


HlOfl 

So* 

o^i 

"P  CM 

Oxo* 

<^>CO 

01  CO 

<Mco 

OO  0* 

COoq 

Wm 

ftpq 

Hw 

Wm 

w« 

bo 

d 

~§  d 

c3  o3 

V 

J3 

| 

© 

m 

ci 

pq 

Id 

Ph 

d 

S 

ro3 

PQ 

Ci 

© 

Ci  © ""T 

dJ  0 ^ 

■s  ap 
a js  ~ 

a 

0 

HP> 

P-3 

rH 

Leathart. 

G.  Johnson  ( 
delphia). 

* rS(gJ=5 

tj&h  - 

1aH  J 
© . ■+3 

*§£ 
c3  . 

Ci  . 

•40 

40 

0 

PQ 

02 

Ci 

10s.  w 
more). 

. Whit 
gatuck 

rs  Hi 
more). 

oh>‘^ 

Q <J 

EH  M 

•“5  P 

CM 

m 

NO 

CO 

VO 

vd 

02) 

co 

O 

CO 

VO 

VO 

d 

PQ 

d 

o' 

£ 

£ 

P nJ  OS  10 

co  P id  cd 

0 co 
CO 

0 P tP 

-rH 

-di 

CM  IQ  CM  VO 

qq  CO  CO  VO 

t^CO  ^ 

CO 

OO 

?D  iO 
00 

dodo 

rH  d d o' 

. ^ 

co  6 6 6 

1-1  o' 

££££ 

<Q 

< ^ 

oppppq 

PQ  PQ  P Ah' 

cq  eC 

m m'lJC' 

PQ 

PQO 

.geo 

PQ 


jS 'd  ■ 


PQ  © 

<D 

rC  PQ 


bc£ 
CO  05 


co  efi  r 
<D  £ 

oil 

bD 

'oCO 


CM 

. «o 

C OO 


CD  "3  Ci 

a a^ 

Eh  • 


d £ 
be  o 


© oc 

r 


t>  .2r 


© ^ ^ 
• H © © 

fl 

£•§  a 

rd  © 
C 

■'"’  © !h 

d C 

© 


PQ 

d ^ PQ 

be 

0 . d 

0 

ymph 
No.  1 
1862, 

'a 

o3 

b* 

m 

t> 

© ’Tj 

0 © § 

1 'a.s 

d a PI 

.§£«< 
© „ 
hi 

m Pm 
© c — ' 
be  a 

% a © 

r-H  W 

®XS 

S** 


151 


16.  Nocturne,  BlueandGold,  R.  BA.  1887  (Sum-  : Alexander  Ionides.  H.  29^. 


WHISTLER 


05 

CM 

05  ^ 

PQ 

Hpq 

fflpq 

• 

rC 

O 

O 

O 

Til 

E 

dJ 

P 

O 

-§ 

d 

k 

PP 

>>r© 
© Mi 

© 

s 

PI  fl 

bfl 

M« 

0 

o3 

P 

o3 

P 

«« 

© 

O 

Mi 

O 

CO 

CO 

<D  rH 
£ 6 
■ 

g -!»  . 

d i-H  d 


SoH^a«s 

d d os  4 pm 


ir’  oo 


So  .fcfc 

rl  02  _ „ 

02  hh  W Pm 


g Oh  ^ 

o-!2 

? § d 


m i 

“ o 

,o 


_£<©j 

CD  ! 


k:  w 

gt>o 

.a  a . 

d 


lO 

© 'CD 


S.-3  • g,-3S 

£ § ” o > S 


© © -a  £ 

§ S 

^ §2 


d © 

d c <o 


.IS) g" | s 

£•3  § 

^cd  O 


1h 
© 

© 45  . g 

c POQ  ji>  § 

I”  © 

^drd  P 
© d t>  P 
o3T3  03P-  d 


152 


19.  The  Golden  Screen,  R.  A.  1865,  No.  90.  Lord  Battersea.  H.  18. 

Caprice  in  Purple  and  G.,  No.  14.  Chas.  Freer.  B.  19|. 

Gold.  Signed  Whistler,  P.,  No.  8. 

1864,  left,  on  the  carpet. 


21.  The  Music  Room,  Ear-  G.,  No.  12.  Madame  Reveillon.  H.  37. 

mony  in  Green  and  B.,  No  15.  Col.  Frank  Hecker  B.  28. 

Rose,  186?  P.,  No.  7.  i (U.S.). 


WHISTLER 


HfMw 

as 

, 30. 
20. 

OS  ou 
o>.  r_l  <M 

Hpq 

WPP 

fflm 

ffl’pq 

a 

o > 

I— ( c3 

Hi  Ti 
Cl  d 
cS  P 
X g 

^ 3) 


CO 


o 

(±02 


<X>  Si 

O <1 


-CO 

IOCO  pjOoo 

jo  o2o) 


.3  6 

6 

I-H  O -4^  r— 1 * • 

>-1 

6 

& 

fci 

- 

- 

P3d»j 

Cu 

pq  d W m PQ  Oh’ 

p4 

r4 

PQ  ?H 
© 

%U2 


22  a 

-§ ; 
PQ  B 


P^PP 

o 


'Ti 

fl  m 

c3  0) 

!>j 

S EH 


'TT  © Cl 
.53  (D 

0 13  ^ 

0 

g ^ g 

o -g 

-c>  offir 


-3 022; 
EH 


k:  ° 

^ J2 
Tl 
® P= 

.l-g1 

QQ 

irT 


2 - 
©32 


02 


153 


WHISTLER 


r_l  CM 

fflpq 


<*3 

WW 


OO  t* 
1-1  CM 

dm 


W « B m W m 


03 

Ig 

“ 

^8  £ 
>ta 

© 

© 

u 

6n 

w d 

•3  a 

& £ 

4 

0 T3 

Sj  nd 

hR  W 

RO 

d 

CO 

CO 

CM 

O 

00 

CO 

d 

CO 

§. 

o' 

0* 

o’ 

, . cm’ 

*Z 

£ 

00 

iC  . 

iC 

OONO 

1—1  o'  os’  rH 

r-5  CM 

CM  CO 

0 4 

CO  CM  r^l 
co  1 

CO 

00 

<5£rHrH 

CM  ,-h 

CM  rH 

CM  rH 

1-1  6 6 

1—1 

1-1  o’  d 6 

d o' 

0 d 

0 d 

<i 

Pnd4 

c4 

4 d PR  Ph" 

Ph’  PQ  Ph’ 

oqpu 

PPPh' 

PRPh 

White 

nstler, 

02 

d 

.2 

"•*2  d 
2 0 

rmony 

and 

signa- 

No.  1. 
White 
Is  (un- 

S' 

0 

d 

© 

© 

j-  . 

^S' 

© 

Id 

£ . 

pM 

£ 

.g 

d 

.hC 

S-t  O 
c8  ^ 

>d 
d"  d 

‘3  03 

ti3  s cd 
^ 0 U 
.0-2  4i 
^ V £,d 
c A d bD 

8 d'^L 

g ,rH  © CO 
£ goo 

'o  bjp’""' 

H-3 

O 

cc 

tn 

d 

.2-2 
0 ^ 

.2  S' 

■as' 

£*02 

«■§ 

m 

© 

2^ 

2 t3 

O 

O . 
rd  CO  . • 

4S  d 0 
8g 

he  Six 
Symph< 
No.  4, 
finished 

> 

t>>-2 

02 1> 

02  c2 

g<  •& 

c8  {> 

cm" 

cd'-^j 

4'rd 

S 3 co 

*— 1 

g.s 

J§.So5 

6 

o|! 

02 

02 

E-t 

EH 

& 

525 

06 

OS 

0 

_: 

CM 

co’ 

4 

CM 

01 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

!54 


WHISTLER 


OO  -h?  CO  Ttl 

1—1  (N  (M  ?0 

W m W pq  W d 


Wpq 


*^cb 

Wm 


© 

n . 

S 05 

3 22 

*s 

.2  ^ -u 

■g 'd  'fl. 
<©  - 


© 0 

13 

>H-I 

O 

© 

'd 

© 

Hd 

a 

a 

■+3  -<^  ^ 

M a 

1— i • © 

. a . 
■S.2  £ 

a 

x 

© 

a 

© 

*^53 

• a ^ p 
"£  g QC 

<i 

3 ® _lT‘? 

H H % 
<1  0 ,33 
Oh1-?^ 

d 

d 

a 0 ^ 

® -~o 

fc 

1— 1 0 
HO 

£ 

£ 

^ 10 

<N  rl 

co  ?d 
CM  i-t 

0 6 

d d 

££ 

pqd 

PPd 

CO 

rH 

05  ^ 

rH  ^ 

rji 

d ^ 

. »o 

0 Tti 
^(N 

1 ^ 

CO 

■'*  - d 

H 00  _ iT5 

_j  - d . . . 
|5-  d co  (M  00 
£gg  ^0-1  corn 

05 

00 

rH 

05  . 
O 05 

HHgod 
-flj  g <§  £ 

H^  6 • 
• .CO£  O 

rH. 1-1  do"  d d 
gagfcfcfc 

a 

0 

4H 

a 

d d 
£!z; 

d d C/2  d Ph 

Ph’ d m d d 

Ph  d OD  d d Ph’ 

O 

dd 

© © 


a 

a 

5 

a rd 

a ^ 

•rH  © 

-rH  rO 

a| 

•It 

•g  a 

jl 

*3  © 

S 

a © 

>>  © 
m -Pi 

^Ph 

50  73 

Is 

Is 

*d 

so 

CO 

co 

g a t=vd  -g 
o *b  a &p 

§ S a® 

8 S'H.  . £ 

,3  bp,H-rK^ 

Eh  fiJ5.® 

«h 

°3~§.s 

£ ® P'S^ « 
?h  k.  A a ’g  © 

O d^PQ  C3  £ © 
Ph 


| £?§•£* 

O S 

fc  o/d  ® 

%<  © § o 

§ 

^ 02 


o © 
T3  ' 

‘I  ^ 

£ X 


>»® 
qa  „ 
a fera 
© _2  -£ 
© £ a 


o <1  SOa  U 

Ph 


a 73 
§o« 
*<  >< 


.;P  © 

I %i 

jn  i— 1 a 
o^a 

Cu 


155 


WHISTLER 


c4 

P od 

*^CO  0.. 

(M  p-i 

0.. 

cnP 

d’pq 

ffipq 

Sw 

<0 

0 

-+J 

3 

0 >> 

Ph 

0 

• CO 

^ p 

P 

co  Sh 

•gjS 

(S  ^ jj 

3 T1 

i*  - 

O r-5 

93 

S . 

Cj  Sh 

TS 

3 

p«°-5s 

id-4 

■ 

Ph  CQ 

Sh 

GQ  ® 
>> 
CD 

£ S 

0 

hP 

£ 

c3  w r/3 

2 -g  3-43 
i®.29 

. 35  QQ 

iV  O SH 

P ^ 

O,  53 

— P 


p 

so 

6 A. 

384 

299, 

6 

Pi 

No. 

o' 

P 

9 1-1  o'  CO 

-H  O 

,9.0 

TjH 

I-  0 P -d 

tC  . 

iC 

oj^P;  10 
1-1  ^0 

UO  f-1 

CO 

00 

6 

r"H 

’"H  o'  d o’ 

o’ 

1— 1 05  Sh  Pj 
^ <D  ^ 

r*0~^ 

d' 

P p p 

p P 

cu 

d d pq  P 

dd 

d( 

• 3£  3 

T3 

• 

"O  be 
3 3 

3 

■■3 

3 

• Ol 

6 o’ 


9 e o 


pq 


«s  £ 08 

O 

O £ O 
3 c$  3 


.£  ^ 

.3  P 
d 

in 

Old 

(G. 

3 p 
r 0 

0 

3^0. 
« £ bc^ 

-gjiss 

3 

0 

r-  O 

P £ 

°OP 

P 

S 'VI 
P 

JgqWP 

Pi 

tH 

45. 

156 


47.  Portrait  sketch  of  F.  R.  L.,  No.  97.  Charles  Conder.  H.  14. 

Leyland.  Signed  with  B.  8|. 

butterfly,  left. 


WHISTLER 


HlNrtU. 

— iidj 

01 0 

id  m 

1-1  CM 

00  g 

i-t  CO 

CM  10 

CM 

W'pq 

dm 

dm 

dm 

dm 

dm 

d 

5C 

a 

£ 

£ 

S 

d 

eg 

>C 

. Per< 
m. 

pj 

c3 

W 

a ^ 

OJ  o>- 

<D 

0) 

5C 

K*^ 

- o3 
£ 

0 

d 

0 

a « 
0 m 

d 

d 

O 

H 

< 

m 

s 

Eh 

d 

CO 

o 

£ 


cd 

CO 


O 6 

ddm 


o 


oo  <; 

m m 


d^ 


<N 

d 


c3  . 
6<~ 
&CQ  ® 


o' 

NO 

o 

£ 


dm 


<D  c2 


157 


CD  c3 
Cl  O 

|o 


cd 


54.  Nocturne,  Cremorne  L.,  No.  62.  W.  Heinemann.  H.  24^. 

Gardens  No.  4,  circa  B.  29^. 


55.  Portrait  of  the  artist,  j L.,  No.  30.  | George  M‘Culloch.  H.  29|. 


WHISTLER 


Hlen  . 

OS  ,_, 

dhS* 

$3  (M 

'-w 

co^ 

I-!  I-l 

r“*  7“H 

<m£h 

t^CO 

Wm 

tdpq 

Wpq 

tapo 

Mw 

oo 

o' 

£ 


CO 

O 

r— 1 

• cj  ^ 

as 

00 

OO 

<N  10 

ooco©h 

6 

O 

6 

6 o' 

'"l  o'  o'  o' 

£ 

£ 

d 

•X 

•>  n 

I'  “ r. 

»4 

h4 

h4 

dw 

dd  M 1-3 

GO 
Tj  1-1 
g 5i  O 

.Ig'i 

CO  ■ OTl 


^ o 

0) 

Q 

Mco 


<u 

-+3  ^ 

'S  .2 

o t>- 
Ph 


S 

^ o 
■ 

3 &C-g 

H go  ~ 

1 J-( 

3 © 


IS. 

2 <D 


s3  ^ 

© 53 
f-H 

© © 
Sl-E 
^ § 
g\d  ^ 

o-|  .S> 

P 02 
■"d  o 
C3T3  § 
c3  © w 
C3  ^T 

r^d  bC<<-l 

£m2 


U Si 
© 3 
r&  P=H 

4. 

U 

S O 


be  9 -r*  > 

§*SJ 

Sh 

< 2 

£ «4H 

— '3  &D.2 

O CO 


M-p 


■*  O S 

3 5 2 

3 *-5  a 


158 


WHISTLER 


O re* 

OO  CO* 

id  iM 

<M  CO 

(N. 

Co. 

l-l  OI 

*^co 

Mm 

Mm 

Mm 

9 

o 

<D 

d 

Cj 

°M 

-u  - — 

I- 

Is 

6| 

-** 

rQ 

5 

© 

nd 

d 

- 

S 

a 

c3 

Q 

dS 

© 

& 

o 

©2 
rd  © 

o cm 

go 

c3  . 

<X>  oQ 

4h  05 

M 

© 

* 

w 

$4 

•%< 

3o 

ft 

M 

mp4 

0) 


5 £ 


Id 

d 

d 

d 

1 

-d 

d 

i 1 

od'e°.  o c“- 

"|§f  A 

ddfCAn 


i£5 

lO 

6 

CO 

10 

d 

Jo 

d 

00 

CO 

0 

< 

0 . 1 

. CO  1 

0 co 

M 

M 

M 

M05  ► 

00" 

af 

0 ded 

o’ 

M 06 

4 o’  . ' 
OS  ^ (M  ( 

00 

00 

00 

-CO 

00  - ^ ( 

i— < 

<— 1 

’-*  o’ 

OS  o’ 

1-1 M ® ! 

d 

M 

d& 

.OShr  ' 

c?2  ,, 

M 

d 

dd 

c/2  iM 

d^dh 

>>  . 
d £ 
o o 

gs 


T3  T3 
d 2 
cS  d . 
.bc-^ 

g _bjO 

m^5! 

d Ilf 

ildo 

o 

® pq  -g 
g ^rd 

d © (H 

■+j  > 43 


te;  3 


o o 

oo 

M 


159 


go 


o O 
o O 
Jz; 


5 JpI? 


frm-g  2 

± c3  J3  "g 

d ® .-^  4^ 

‘^ts  ^ 

® Cfl  _, 

d ^ rd  S 

~ * <D  O 

d 'o  d +=> 

■S  o.W)-g 

OOOQr^ 

M 


<j  i<i  § 

^ -m 

1h  Ot-H 

d)  csa 

'HmS  d 
6.S  •'" 

c/j  <x)  d) 

fS  I g I 

be  > bj 
» d P d 

.2  03 


WHISTLER 


5W 
£ 
© 
* tr> 

33 

s 

S 


ffipq 


00  CO 
<N 


Km 


o 

O 

• =« 

2 °s 

'-•—i 

§ ^ 
o o 

m «2 

03  Jh 


JO 


-go 

* j 


Oj  o 
— 2 


© © ,CS 

‘S  £ £ 


« fl  O s 

02  fHTh 
r^j  e3  — ’ • 7J  Pp 

td  hH  ^ &J3 


cj  ^ O _,  © 

Lj  _s^  ' — 1 

-g  (©  o 3 

O O >"  O r& 


O O 

~ . 6 . . 

P ^ ^ (M 

«£rH*l^«> 

^KooKK 

d d cd  pq  m 

d „•  ©.d 
©2d.^ 
PSH  fe 

■sj!l§ 

gH 

g*S 

K§2 


_bjD  j-; 

02  o 


fll 

•|-1  Cj 

o O 

a . 

gK 

Id 


i to 


^ K K K 

dddm 


CC  4J 

'd-g  . 

i 

© ^ -2 
-fe  O 

d © ® 
'rH  d ^ 
© bfi^ 


160 


WHISTLER 


OS  oJ 
'-l  CM 

Km 


Co  rj 

g-g 

U o 

r&  'OC 

g S 

gs 

<j  o 


GO 

?o 

co 

o O 

K ^ 


oS3 


d^' 
d < 


CM 

GO  > • 

S|53 


CM  • 

CO  O . 1^ 
00  CM  OS 

-odd 


^ ^ 

a .S  o A; 

<D 

d^S-s 

X 0^3  "S  . 

fa  Q 

d)  -4m 

fcKTS 

c r" 

Meu 
Harm 
ur  an 
and 
ith  b 
t side 

ct 

pq"  ^ 

H * 

HH  ’77  A ^ "©  IU 

>-L|  0 m fl  o 

o o 

Sji 

£ s m K-cq  ,s 

5 .2 

W'L 


Nocturne  in  Black  and  G.  G.,  1883,  No.  115.  Arthur  Studd.  H.  21. 

Gold,  The  Tire  Wheel.  G.,  No.  7.  B-  30. 

B. , No.  66. 


WHISTLER 


Oo 

<M  CO 

pd  pq 


fflpq 


fflcq 


W« 


£ 

Id  dP  ei  • 
O © ■+=>  'Z' 

£ -o  <»  £2 
<5  PnLr'Id 

►*>  c3  0 

hP  S 


be  • 

© (72 

d .• 


CO  l^*  CO  o 
CO  i 1 SO 

oo  . 

r-H  O o O 

&*** 


O T^t 

6 . 

T+l  hjp-  I— ( 

OO  I'd 

oo  _ 
’-'m  o 
. oo  yZ 
^ GO 


£ 


o 

OO  . 

00  *o 

1  1 

o 

< - 


£ 00  Si 

^kQoo 


CD  r-H 


.r-l  © 

O .fc 


© 

PP  hi 


pq 

P3  QQ  M h4  Ph‘ 


. ''p  odd 

pq  ©2o££;£ 


c$ 

O 

£PP 

m © 


©pq 

d © 


qs? 

© S’  . 
^ a * ® 
di  © “ 5 

58  bo  zi 

= ajf 


© c 


d!  © 


§ ^c8 

SpSJ* 
_ © 
S3  CO  rP 

•H  Q 

©£  <8 
C ^ © 

*3  . 03 

O Od3 

©OO 


d ►>» 

d P 

I- 


rp,© 

© S 

m bo 
!h  d 
© d 
-u  f-i 

03  t* 

in 


©"■o 
"c8  «$ 

pcq 

3 d 

U2"~ 
o "£ 

S 2 

c8  S 
Pm 


162 


1885  (Win- 


WHISTLER 


10 
<35  CO 

Mm 


Mm 


Mm 


wpq 


a 

'a  ^ 
O o 
nO 
© 

Is 

,3  o 


o 

.Mo 

• ,t5  © 

m ©M 


o . 

io-  x 

OO  hS 

oo  M 


m aim 


a 

02  . 
' — 'oo 

S 6 
4* 
m | 
m 


o t^CO 
- 6 o' 


mm 


m o . o 
>00^  . 
• ^ CO  ^ (M 

pq  | M go  M 

m c oi  m 


m co 
_© 
<D  OS 

"S  ^ 
02  . 


no  o 


m a 
m 


and 

© o' 

.2  n 

and 

ark’s, 

hurch 

Mag- 

©~ 

s' 

r-H'TJ 

3 a 

p*  © 

© 

a m 

o 0 

5 . 

S*amr 

mm 

O 

m 

s« 

© o 

a •'-| 

Blue 

St 

(R.  B. 
d Gold. 

'a  o 

£3 

r— r K*> 
<0  © 
-t-s  Sh 

m^ 

.s-s3 

O 

t>» 

§ ^ 
^ § 

©~  . <s 

a © d 

SS 

© § 
^ © 

r<5  a 

o §3 

O 

o • 

• am 

sh  -_©  a 

£<72 

© 

a 

S >> 

o 

£ 'o 

ao 

|Mm 

|S’S  o 

o o © a 

oo>m 

mm 

Jo' 

o 

'So 

o IS 
d E> 

i^a  o 
aMM 

H 

M 

m 

cd 

i-l 

oo 

os 

o' 

m 

ol 

oo 

00 

oo 

oo 

os 

os 

os 

1^3 

93.  Mrs  Walter  Sickert,  R.  B.  A.  1887  (Sum-  Mrs  Cobden  Sickert. 
Arrangement  in  Violet  mer),  No.  157. 


WHISTLER 


o 6 

c«. 

oo  tj! 

i — i jvj 

M'pq 

Ww 

W'pq 

m os 
d O 


o3 

.G 

o . 

O | 

d £ 

do 


£9 

o g 

s-g 

^ c3 

<D  ^ 

rQ  . 


CO 

T— i 

go  . 

© 

o 

'VO 

t^© 

OO  1—1 

oo  . 

© 
T— 1 

o 

ctT 

c. 

vO 

© 

© 

rH 

i— i 

to 

cd 

t'- 

cd  ; 

cd 

cd 

CO 

oc 

o 

6 

o 

6 

o 

° VT 

ogf 

o 

!2J 

£ 

£ 

£ 

£ 

12;  pq  2 

£ 

od 

- 

- G 

o 

pq 

a; 

O 

PQ 

pJ 

dtf 

d 03 

d 

a)  g 

G 

5 

E-i 

a) 

O c3  . • 

dJ|  J 

ffl 

oT 

© 

• S © fi 

1—1 

m 

©Ofi 

C2  -n 

.G 

a m 
a;  oo 
p oo 

Nocturi 

Silver 

ment, 

© , 
A. ( 
© 

S’-1 

o' 

d 

»d 

© 

© 

© 

© 

164 

© ~ 
g o 

5 c3 

!§• 


98.  Nocturne,  Battersea  G.,  No.  25.  Alfred  Chapman.  H.  20. 

Reach.  P.,  No.  71.  Geo.  W.  Vanderbilt  B.  65. 

(U.S.). 

99.  Blue  and  Gold,  Channel.  ! G.,  No.  26.  Alfred  Chapman.  ? 


WHISTLER 


O o 


dPQ 


. . MHVfc, 

»30 


ffl  PQ  Ph  pq 


0 

Or 

-P  <®  03 

id  03 

cd 

• 0 

03 

cd  d t^l 

CO 

CO 

COO® 

CO  CO 

CO 

CO 

CO  j—i 

co  or  o-r 

6 

6 

odd 

d d 

d 

o' 

d O 

o'  o'  d 

£ 

£ 

£££ 

£ 

£ 

£££ 

d 

d 

odd 

dd 

d 

d 

dd 

PQ  d d 

rQ 

cS 

m- 

Ever 

§ 

cZ3  4§ 

0 

02 

'© 

A 

O 

rd  • 
+3  lO 

oT 

>* 

d 

0 

o5  [3 
O 

3 O 

O 

© 

&H  _3 
Q 

d § 

Sh* 

"ci 

O 

•3  03 

S °o 

§ 

PQ 

s I 

o3jg 

> 

.3 

u w~ 

U1 

pq 

•rH  g 

02 

_.  cS 

OQ 

d 

iT§> 

T3 

o' 

O © 

T3  . 

3 02 

id 

© 

cS 

3 d 

§ £5 

0) 

-u 

§ 

1 

§ 2 

; &}¥ 

rey 

■+3 

OO 

O © 
>2  > 

>>d 

►>--1-3 

g\g 

0 

0 

O r-» 

rd  l-Q 

O 

}Z5 

0 

m 

Q 

or* 

cd 

-p 

id 

cd 

i>; 

06 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

165 


WHISTLER 


Kcq 


co  Qvj 

Woq 


Ww  tn  pq 


o 

a 

© 

'o 

s 

^°3 

a 

m 

m 

|d 

d 

n 

Sg 
<1 
d <d 

d 

© 

nd 

rd 

O 

'o 

qd 

d 

oS 

O 

oS 

a 

© 

.a 

’© 

o 

mo 

GO 

02 

<D 

.a 

gPH 

PC 

o 

m 

u 

pq 

w 

£ 

a 

c 

O 

o 6 o 

£££ 

pq  h4  Ah’ 


!m 

o . . 

d . 

‘d 
0 oo 

t,  o* 

*z  <r> 

^ CO  CM 

O o 
oo££ 

i/-  05 
^ CM 

^ O 

C*  hr 
00 

sl 

Is  ^ 
0 

1-1  - ~ 

£ 

02  PQ  Ah’ 

02’ PQ 

hi-3 

^ *Sb 

CD  © 


02 

CD 

II 

•V  O 
o « 


^ 1 

g I 

II 

pq  d 
_o 
<d  ‘d 

a §r 

O c 
o 

© <5 
►H 


di  o 
PQO 
id 'd 
q3  d 
cS 

3 <§ 

<d  -d 
djpq 
EH 


oo  oo 

in  rH 
CM  . 
i-i  o 

d*  . . 

^ 05  CO 

M-.Z& 

*-<02  „ ^ 

02  hh  h3  P-i 


o >» 
o ° 

n© 

gw 

?§  (*: 
rd  . 

P-i  O 

© Uh 

EH  ° 


co 


66 


114.  La  petite  souris,  Grey  I.  S.  1898,  No.  176.  Miss  Birnie  Phillip.  H.  20. 
and  Silver.  Signed  j B.,  No.  27.  B 12 

with  butterfly,  on  left.  ! P.,  No.  41. 


115.  Carmen  qui  rit,  Violet  I.  S.  1899,  No.  133.  A.  A.  Pope, 
and  Rose.  B.,  No.  38. 


WHISTLER 


CN  T — | 

MW 


• Hid 

Mw 


Mw 


t-co 

Mw 


0 

© 

© 

pH 

£ 

£ 

GO 

03 

A 

O 

03 

cS 

•“0 

Q 

O 

CO 

06 

CO 

CO 

CO 

T— 1 

I— 1 

1 — 1 

d 

d 

d 

& 

oTS 

ov 

S O 
M 
m „ 

hP  'A 


S d d 
.fc!£ 
m . . 

HH  PP  Ph'  m 


m 


a®’ 

SP 

03  ' 

o 


f—t  o 


_ o o 
fSfciz; 

H © .n  ^ 


o 


ce  M 
hP 


0 2 

HhT 

0 

O 

© ro 

• 2h 

.©  O 

O 

T5  0 
H 

c3 

0 0 

«T 

:>> 

d 

© ^ 

GO  c3 

. O 
P>-»  ryj 
-TS  O 
e8  03 

„ O’n 

Neighbou 

Orange. 

ait  of  Lac 
svn  and 

troyed). 

£ g 
M 
0 x) 
0 
.15 

d rj-J 

03  in  03 

115 

© D 
pC  o3 

£ 0 § 
oCQ2- 

-£  0 
oO 

hi 

. H 

Ph 

Ph 

<30 

03 

0 

H 

CN 

Ol 

167 


122.  Little  Blue  and  Gold  B.,  No  26.  Chas.  Freer. 

Girl.  P.,  No.  48. 


124.  Nocturne,  Westminster.  B.,  No.  59.  John  G.  Johnson  (U.S.) 


WHISTLER 


Spq  SPP 


OS  OO  O rvj 

S 00  r-ljq 

H3  pq  S pq  ffl  pq  W pq  S pq 


QD 

O 

O 

O 


o 

<N 

C> 

<D  -qi 

c4 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

SO 

CO 

?o 

CO 

6 

o' 

A o 

6 

o' 

6 

d 

o 

S 

s 

S 

S 

s 

. 

pa 

pq 

o^i 

pq 

Pq 

pq 

pq 

pq 

o 

£ 

of//} 

"5  HH 

►> 

a 

o 

§ 

•a 

o 

nr 

03  ~ 

a 

<D 

5 

ns 

>H  £ 

0 r" 


-g  S.£P 

O Ph  OQ 


rX 

o 

0 

d ^ 

•rH  r<3 

O 

0 

o.2 

ctf 

PP  d 

cO 

0 

o S 

EH 

H"-" 

o 

,_; 

CO 

CO 

„ 2 3 

rj^j  r°  CC 

"O  rd  -g 

o.|-g, 
^ £-c 


d g^ 

2a3  S 
pq 


68 


WHISTLER 


H|(M  hKM  . . ..i,  H|01 

® 03  ^ Ol  ^ ^ 

M pq  ffi  pq'  K pq  cfl  cq 


pq  X PQ  ffi  pq  ffl  pq 


MW 
CO  § 

ffim 


o O q5 


o3 


WHISTLER 

m 

© 
*c n 

fl 

hPhm. 

cirri1 

HNrt’lN 
■'t*  CO 

MW*  . 
CO  CO 

tSg: 

s 

Km 

Pirn 

km 

Km 

Km 

Km 

Km 

5 

t/3 

u 

2 

o> 

c 

£ 

<D 

M 

d 

d 

§ 

I 

.8  ■ 

03 

03 

M 

K 

M 

in 

*-4 

M 

m 

< 

d 

O 

£ 

m 

c3 

m 

o 

K 

K 

K 

M 

O - 

O 

© 

K§ 

m3  3 

o 

,_; 

M <n' 

od  cd 

M 

l-H 

00  vd 

o 

VO 

r-H  O 

01  >0 

VO 

CO 

CO  J>- 

w 

o" 

o 

o o 

d d 

d 

d 

d d 

03 

Q 

K 

K 

KK 

KK 

K 

K 

KK 

M‘ 

M' 

MM 

MM 

M 

M 

MM 

T3 

03 

rd  d 

M'  £ 

Ch 

03 

cl 

Cfl  r- 

O 3h 

«§  qd 

J> 

cdDM 

02  .g> 

Q 

E *h 

« <X> 
m > 

~®  03 

m K 
m ^ 

O U,  . 

® 'g'S 

03 

-t^> 

O 

K 

m 

nd 

id 

CA  0 

i% 

C?_, 

1oM 

^ ^ 'O 

03 

K 

cS 

"cS 

H 

2 ^ 

rcL  a . 

' cO  ^ 

£,  u c3 

&H  £ 

03 

k—l 

■J  * s 

KtJ  O 

03 

+3 

cj 

O 

aiT 

0 

ti 

O o .<« 

^ 03  4^ 
03  P rd 

•'d  03  ^ 

M o - 

M 

03 

02 

s 

[©  •£ 

03  'o  'cl 

53  .&>  5fj 

03.SP| 

03 

03 

-+J 

0 

M.  ^ 

M C3  yd 

~£  02  K 

M02M 

M 

,_d 

0 

H 

M 

H 

H 

Eh 

K 

CO 

M 

>d 

cd 

M 

ad 

03 

-rfl 

■w* 

■w* 

■w* 

■w* 

rH 

1—1 

1 

>- 1 

>-* 

1—1 

170 

150.  The 


WHISTLER 


Km 


KM 


Km 


Km 


05  5© 

Km 


Km 


lO  oj 

Km 


^ 05 

Kpq 


!>> 

a 

G 

fl 

eS 

K 

< 

< 


50 

OO  DO 
1^00 

05 

o 

00 

OO 

(M 

OO 

CO 

OO 

o’ 

O O 

6 

o 

o 

o 

o 

£ 

££ 

£ 

K 

K 

£ 

£ 

M 

MM 

M 

M 

M 

M 

M 

>>  >» 
a 

m © 

+3  43 

M^ 


'S3 

_b£  \ 

m \ 


figS 

H « fe 


(X 

_d 

O 

Blue, 
ers  ( 

© M 
g m 
.bo.bc 

c3 

© 

M 

li 

and 

Bath 

£ 
— i.32 

© 

H 

M G 

43,2 
© ;£ 

querie 

butter 

© 

t> 

43 

.G  do 

Q)  o 

,-c 

t> 

m 

* 

®i 

CO 

\o 

iO 

kO 

f£ 

•2  © 
ft  3§  ©’ 

© Jq  *53 


cq  .2P-5 

^GQ  £ 

M 


® _0  Jh 

Stf  I 


® H K 

£?G  ® 
O.^P 
K cc  „ 

© >-. 

£ .'S  h 

•rS  .2  © © 

K 5bs  £ 

© J 3 o 
M M M © 
EH 


7i 


Street. 


WHISTLER 


a 

.2 

CO 

• MW< 
*©  lO 

©i  t>l 
(N  Jp 

19. 

11. 

05 

s» 

cot™ 

is 

£ 

33 

33 

33 

3 3 

33 

33 

33 

3 3 

s 

<D 

c3 

& 

2 

© 

^ w 
u*  © 

2 

33 

P 

O 

© 

d 

cS 

rC 

3 

O 

a 

<D 

IP 

-»• 

0 3 

X 

3 

s 

© 

*H 

2 

5 

3 

£f2 

0 ^ 

Sh 

© 

_s 

IP 

05 

s 

ft 

J> 

5 

SCO 

0 

8-d 

_© 

s 

0 

’© 

w 

O 

2d 

«+H 

O 

>3 

O 

w 

§ 

£ 

« 

Q 

O 

*§ 
Ph  2 

"2  5 

-p 

id 

cd 

id 

3 * 

00 

00 

T— I 

■P 

50 

00 

1—1 

»« 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

o' 

d 

d 

rt 

Q 

3 

£ 

£ 

3 

£ 

X 

X 

3 

Ph 

Pi 

pi 

3 

3 

3 

-t-3 

HH> 

0 

_o 

© 

& 

CO 

© 

S 

ca 

© 

© 

rS 

Is 

© 

a 

a 

0 

« 

3 

>V2 

3 

m 

HH3 

pp 

© 

s 

H 

a 

© 

2 

2 

© 

© 

Ph 

pi 

0 

3 

s 

s 

73 

0 

r 

& 

ca 

c3 

© 

•l-H 

,pH 

H 

3 

© 0* 
^0 

c3 

C 

O 

O 

g 

£ 

3 

_g 

HJ 

-tJ  . 

^ 2 

!-; 

?H 

2oi 

•s  • 

2 c« 

© 

A 

© 

7 

7; 

JSl 

Whi; 

No 

O 

H 

H 

3 

3 

H 

00 

05 

0 

,_; 

CN 

cd 

•p 

id 

iQ 

iO 

«o 

co 

50 

50 

50 

50 

1-1 

1-1 

1-1 

1-1 

1-1 

r—i 

1-1 

1-1 

172 


WHISTLER 


• H|N 

S°3 

cow 

05  (JC| 

cc  ^ 

HlOJ  . 

MW  . 

rH  CM 

■i^cow 

QQ 

Mpq 

Him 

Hpq 

Pm 

Mm 

Mm 

M m 

P 

•/.’ 

© 

c3 

O 

£ 

O 

P 


o © 


0 o 

01  r^ 
M m 
P 


N 

*!» 

C 

o 


«i 


i 


© 

bp 

3 

© 

O 

© 

oS 

M 

m 


173.  Harmony  in  Blue  and  L.,  No.  55.  I His  Honour  Judge  H.  5. 

Silver.  j Evans.  B.  8^. 


175.  Study  of  a Girl's  Head  L.,  No.  58.  Baroness  de  Meye] 

and  Shoulders. 


WHISTLER 


CO 

a 

o 

CD 

a 

<D 

S 

5 


4 CO 


Mpq 


M'pq 


aw 


aw 


ffipq 


■rji 

6 

Jz; 


4 


O 0) 

^ C 

m ®8 

2 x 


>-»  © 
^ o 

-So 

m 


o’ 

oo 


!74 


181.  Note  in  Red  and  Violet.  | L.,  No.  77.  J Miss  Constance  Hal-  H.  4|. 

ford.  B.  8. 


WHISTLER 


r-H  T_) 

^ GO 

Hw 

OOlO 

H|N  _ 

GO 

so  10 

10 

^ CO 

Wpq 

hd  PQ 

Mw 

Ww 

a'cq 

Mod 

S 

a 

0) 

© 

be 

a 

a 

a 

a 

m 

© 

'5 

O 

c3 

& 

O 

O 

© 

£ 

9 

W 

g 

e8 

0 

© 

O 

© 

c3 

c3 

O 

O 

© 

U1 

m 

d 

d 

ra 

d 

< 

a 

r£ 1 

a 

s 

£ 

PQ 

a 

Eh 

m 

h4 

O 

*-3 

0 

£ 

w. 

PQ 

0 

S 

175 


GETTY  CENTER  LIBRARY 


3 3125  00758  4358 


